So you downvoted a comment that I put some thought into, snipped out the majority of it in your quoting, disagreed with the one line you quoted, and then failed to explain how it was wrong.

All you'd have to do is show one positive to be gained from religion that is exclusive to religion, and you did not do so. After labeling me absurd, you then veer completely off that point. Religion is a combination of philosophy and dogma, and it is my contention that all the positives inherent in religion come from the philosophy and not the dogma, thus rendering them available even to those who do not buy into the dogma. I singled out Christianity (which I am most familiar with) but you could apply these statements equally to Buddhism (with their dogma being reincarnation and karma), and most likely to any other religion.

Those who are moral because of heaven or hell, or because they want to be reincarnated well, or for whatever other dogmatic reason fail to appreciate morality for what it is. If this is such an absurd comment, then by all means please tear it apart. Just calling it names does nothing constructive whatsoever.

I don't know what to do with the knowledge that you rarely vote on comments, considering your failure makes your vote seem rather petty to me. On the plus side, I have no idea what effect your vote has, so it's hard to be affected by it.

I almost had an small adult circumcision for medical reasons (simply TOO BIG for the foreskin), but me a doctorman decided that we didn't have to cut too much, and just did a little snip thing. YOU HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED FEAR UNTIL BLOOD RUNS FROM YOUR PENIS!

Anyways, that was an example of an actual good reason for getting it. Mutilating children with this is just barbaric. We don't cut off parts of the ear, just because we get earwax, or because we have to "hear the word of God" - but we do if our earlobe gets skin cancer.


Reason, people. Germany has it. Well, they do now.

Shiny once accused me of watching Zeitgeist as well... I always thought it was a 9/11 conspiracy film... I half want to see the film now to see how it goes from Christ myth to 9/11 conspiracy...

Apologist always like pointing out that things that don't matter when talking about the stuff like Horis, the Babylonian Lord of the Harvest and other gods who died and resurrected. There is plenty of pre-Christian stories of them. True the specific details are often post-Christianity, but the general concept has been around long before the Old Testament was put down to paper, back when was just a verbal story passed from generation to generation... somehow avoiding the issues that come up when one plays the telephone game... and somehow avoiding all the errors that we know and can prove cropped up after it was written and copied by hand. When the Israelites were in Babylon, they learned of a Babylonian god which was a god of harvesting, and he sacrificed himself and rose again. It doesn't matter if the time frame of the resurrection was added after Christianity came around, the general story itself existed before Christianity, indeed even before the Old Testament was written in any sort of form we have available today.

I think two important videos relate:
http://videosift.com/video/A-History-of-God-Part-1
http://videosift.com/video/Dr-Bart-Ehrman-Historically-accurate-criticism-of-the-Bible

<snipped a long rant about Christians shopping or going to restaurants on Sunday after church, thereby making people who may have wanted to be at church have to work instead and a lot more...>

There is just so much one has to take on faith... not only the existence of God, but that the errors from repeating the stories, even after they were written down, were God's will, and that the version used by translators is the one God wanted to use, not earlier, supposedly more accurate to the source versions (the Dr. Bart Ethrman video linked above is a nice one for that, in regards to the story of the woman at the well not being in the original texts or commentaries for centuries, but then it appears and everyone likes it so it stuck). You have to take it on faith that not only did fallible men who preserved the word, copied it (errors made not being a result of fallibility but of divine will), translated it, etc. did everything they did perfectly in regards to the Bible. Then fallible men at the Council of Nycea and others that established the books that are generally accepted, somehow were the only ones to become infallible when picking the books that would be in the Bible... differences between the Catholic Bible and Protestant Bible being ignored because many protestants say Catholics aren't even Christian anyhow...Then you have to take it on faith that every person since those times who has had a revelation from God is crazy. You also have to take it on faith that every book or document relating to the church that has been found since then was hidden by God. All to create the perfect infallible word of god...

Anyhow, I am getting off track and enough feeding the troll.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
RIGHT. I'm not talking about crappy little yapping dogs, but here goes!

Dogs love you so much they'll protect you with their life without even hesitating.
Many dogs have great empathy, they know when you're sad and try to cheer you up.
They're hardy and strong so you can take them on adventures (ok, hikes, i'm a big kid)
They understand how to play games and actually do what they're supposed to do ie. fetch.
They are the best animal to play fight with.
They're like a huge hot waterbottle if you let one lie on your bed.
They can be stupid as hell and it's really funny.
They're so clever they can be used to help blind people get around easier.
Their noses are like magic so police and rescuers can use them.
They are great protection against burglars for a house (the right one at least)
They're used for farming, for our food
They can be used to pull us around, as transport
They even work in the military
-snip- allow me to just edit and add that wikipedia's page on dogs around the section on "work" shows just how amazing dogs are better than i could -snip-

Ok i'm boring myself. In a totally normal, non weirdo way; dogs are the best animal on this planet, they're literally made to accompany us.

"a study of conversations in dog-human families showed how family members use the dog as a resource, talking to the dog, or talking through the dog, to mediate their interactions with each other." -- best source ever wikipedia (pokerface)

The case is made. Dogs are awesome. And i didn't once mention cats.

RIGHT. I'm not talking about crappy little yapping dogs, but here goes!

Dogs love you so much they'll protect you with their life without even hesitating.
Many dogs have great empathy, they know when you're sad and try to cheer you up.
They're hardy and strong so you can take them on adventures (ok, hikes, i'm a big kid)
They understand how to play games and actually do what they're supposed to do ie. fetch.
They are the best animal to play fight with.
They're like a huge hot waterbottle if you let one lie on your bed.
They can be stupid as hell and it's really funny.
They're so clever they can be used to help blind people get around easier.
Their noses are like magic so police and rescuers can use them.
They are great protection against burglars for a house (the right one at least)
They're used for farming, for our food
They can be used to pull us around, as transport
They even work in the military
-snip- allow me to just edit and add that wikipedia's page on dogs around the section on "work" shows just how amazing dogs are better than i could -snip-

Ok i'm boring myself. In a totally normal, non weirdo way; dogs are the best animal on this planet, they're literally made to accompany us.

"a study of conversations in dog-human families showed how family members use the dog as a resource, talking to the dog, or talking through the dog, to mediate their interactions with each other." -- best source ever wikipedia (pokerface)

The case is made. Dogs are awesome. And i didn't once mention cats.

Ana actually states that it was a voluntary sterilization program sorta like a man getting snipped or a woman having her tubes tied. Sorry can't remember the medical names for those procedures off hand. lol

[edit]A vasectomy or a hisdirectomy(sp?) that's what it is heh I just remembered.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Yogi:
Selective sterilization is a step towards eugenics.

They were being hyperbolic.
If anyone seriously tried to set up a forced sterilization program these two would be among the first to scream about it (as would I).

Others have already posted links to video recording software. I've used Xfire to record small snips of games, but I don't know if it supports Minecraft. All of the recording programs (AFIK) record raw (i.e. uncompressed) video, so they will be very large files.

If he wants to put in fancy effects and titles, the video editing is probably going to be the most expensive if you go pay software. I don't know of any free programs that can do editing like that. If you just want to put the clips together and compress them, there are some good free programs that can do that. The free programs I've used are VirtualDub and HandBrake. Grab the ffdshow codec. I believe I read somewhere that if you encode your videos using H.264, it makes things easier when uploading to YouTube since it won't have to convert it, and the ffdshow codec can do H.264. I'd start out with free stuff before spending money to make sure it's something he's going to stick with. If he sticks with it, you're going to need to buy some more hard drives to keep backups on too.

I subscribe to and watch a few Minecraft LP channels. I like to watch how other people play and what they do because it gives me ideas of things to do in my own game. One also makes up a story and role plays, which is kind of cheesy but interesting.

*dead *Dead & *Alive!>> ^enoch:

video seems to be dead
backup
<snipped>

>> ^shinyblurry:

...snip...

Thank you for providing this example of your irrationality and intellectual dishonesty by, among other things, completely ignoring the counterpoints to the few studies I was able to get to.

There is a classic false argument of saying that being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance. If you want to classify my refusal to allow your intolerant claims to stand unabated in that manner, so be it. I do apologize that I didn't make myself more clear about not thinking you were a homophobe, but the simple fact is that I look at people's actions and speech instead of why they say they are doing something. Your actions of condemnation are the same end result and that is what I meant to draw the parallel too, but I had to leave for work and unfortunately didn't make that point clearly.

It irks me that you dismiss what I say as trying to undermine only part of your evidence. (To be more honest, I think that irksome feeling is more tied into your utter refusal to address those points of contention… which was expected, but still frustrating.) I didn't have enough time to go through all of your provided evidence. I had to leave for work soon and while writing is lovely, it is a laborious action for me - it takes a while for me to write anything surpassing cursory. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that I actually was reading and thinking about the studies. So while you were able to throw together quite a few apparently supporting studies for your viewpoint in an hour, I was much slower because I read those studies beyond the headline and skimming the abstract. Congratulations, you succeeded in becoming skillful on the quantity side... perhaps now it is time to focus on the quality side.

Please in the future, respond after reading/viewing any evidence provided. This is similar to all the comments I see here asking you to actually watch the video before announcing that (shock!) what you thought was right was still right because you saw something that you disagree with in the first couple of minutes. If you don’t have the evidence or that evidence is something is the hazy distance of memory, just leave a comment that you need to refresh your memory on those resources. I completely understand this situation as I voraciously and nomadically spelunk into various intellectual subjects. On a semi-regular basis and depending on the subject, I will have to re-find that research that I faintly remember. I know that my writing style can come off as hyper-aggressive and be a little off-putting (especially when coupled how people have responded to you here on videosift.) I can only speak for myself, but if your response to my initial comment said simple that you had read it in some research long ago, that was hazy, and you needed to find those sources – this conversation could have went a very different route.

>> ^shinyblurry:

...snip...

Of course you have some information to verify your confirmation bias. There is an issue that some of these studies focus (or were only able to find) gay people in the gay party scene. This typically includes younger (or older that stayed in the party scene) people who normally engage in riskier behaviour. Hard to include those people who are quietly gay due to some fear or just preference. Some of these studies are quite old too (one of your cited studies is from 1981... Seriously?) Much has changed for gay men and women in the last 15+ years.


- Link below was not found (even with unbreaking the link.) Obviously you've been working on this presentation for a while so that you can quickly "prove" that gays are the blight on society that you claim.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2242700&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_Resul
tsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

- Link below is from 2003. It clearly shows the need for STD and sex education in this country. If I was less educated and wasn't worried about getting a woman pregnant, I wouldn't worry about condoms either. It's not a hard concept, but one that I imagine you will easily dismiss because it undermines your argument.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm

- A study from two cities in a southern state from 1994. I've included a quote for this study that, apparently, you overlooked: "Although a low response rate severely limits the interpretation of these data, they are justified by the absence of similar published data for both gays and lesbians living outside major metropolitan areas." (This data isn't very useful, but we don't have any other data so we should use it. Again, not a hard concept, but it undermines you conclusions... Ignore! Ignore!)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615476/

- I like how you didn't read all of those 134 words in the second link - "helps users escape internalized homophobia or other social stigmas." I also find it shocking that gay men in long-term, stable relationships are not constantly going to an STD testing clinic - Does this point make sense? You haven't been completely robbed of all logic, have you? If you want to be a little more honest with yourself and actually look at the studies, it is easy to see the gaps that undermines your jumping to validate your viewpoint.

http://www.narth.com/docs/methuse.html



Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but I feel that, as with many born-again, you've lost your empathy to your newfound religious fervor. While my dad isn't a born again, he hides and validates his homophobia with the word of god and the bible. I know, I know - you aren't homophobic... you just see them as immoral sinners destroying society, a force that must be stopped, etc, etc.

In conclusion, logic and self-honesty - what the fuck are those?

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
working embed here <...snip...>

Thank you. May you have a wonderful day!

I think the game systems change between 1 and 2 didn't allow for a similar system, and thus the level 1 reset. ME2 and ME3 are closer, so it starts you out where you left off from ME2, pretty much.

Also, this might help you - http://social.bioware.com/project/8005/
>> ^VoodooV:

The only thing you get to keep across the games is your decisions. Many of which I had forgotten from when I played ME1. Sure I remembered the big stuff, but then you'd get an NPC from one of the more forgettable missions and it's just....uhh...ok.
And yes I know they gave an in game explanation for it, but still, for me it just cheapens it going from a level 60 character in ME1 back to level 1 in ME2
>> ^CrushBug:
>> ^VoodooV:
The Reapers are supposed to be this super hyper-advanced threat that has wiped out entire civilizations on multiple occasions, but simply because Shep gathers a big enough fleet that will magically take them down? Bull.
[snip]
What I really wanted was a game similar to the whole Pool of Radiance trilogy back in the day where your characters really did truly continue from game to game and not start over like they do in ME.

For the first part, I think once you play the game, it will make more sense.
For the second, I would like to hear more about what you mean. Characters import from game to game. You have the option to make certain changes like class and appearance, but everything else comes across. I am probably just missing something in what you are saying.

The only thing you get to keep across the games is your decisions. Many of which I had forgotten from when I played ME1. Sure I remembered the big stuff, but then you'd get an NPC from one of the more forgettable missions and it's just....uhh...ok.

And yes I know they gave an in game explanation for it, but still, for me it just cheapens it going from a level 60 character in ME1 back to level 1 in ME2

>> ^CrushBug:

>> ^VoodooV:
The Reapers are supposed to be this super hyper-advanced threat that has wiped out entire civilizations on multiple occasions, but simply because Shep gathers a big enough fleet that will magically take them down? Bull.
[snip]
What I really wanted was a game similar to the whole Pool of Radiance trilogy back in the day where your characters really did truly continue from game to game and not start over like they do in ME.

For the first part, I think once you play the game, it will make more sense.
For the second, I would like to hear more about what you mean. Characters import from game to game. You have the option to make certain changes like class and appearance, but everything else comes across. I am probably just missing something in what you are saying.

>> ^VoodooV:

The Reapers are supposed to be this super hyper-advanced threat that has wiped out entire civilizations on multiple occasions, but simply because Shep gathers a big enough fleet that will magically take them down? Bull.
[snip]
What I really wanted was a game similar to the whole Pool of Radiance trilogy back in the day where your characters really did truly continue from game to game and not start over like they do in ME.


For the first part, I think once you play the game, it will make more sense.

For the second, I would like to hear more about what you mean. Characters import from game to game. You have the option to make certain changes like class and appearance, but everything else comes across. I am probably just missing something in what you are saying.

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/289149
>> ^taranimator:

Oh, to be able to snip this sucker down to just 0:38 - 1:30 -- awesome!!