@bareboards2
pure and utter sophistry.

and i resent the fact that you slyly attempt to imply that i will just sit back and remain silent to injustice.

when i feel quite confident my records on this site prove the exact opposite.i have vociferously and aggressively taken on those who would bully,berate and belittle anyone who would voice their opinion.

i believe i have come to YOUR defense on more than one occasion.

what i found disturbing in your comment and maybe i should clarify is this "As Homeland Security says, if you see something, say something."

this is LITERALLY what was posted on almost every open venue in east germany.

and for you to tacitly excuse this statement by dismissively stating that "the stasi operated in secret".as somehow being evidence of your own righteousness belies an ignorance of just how oppressive and fearful those people were living in those conditions.

so you are morally superior because you openly called to out,and i quote "benevolent dictator with a light touch",and did not do so in private?
THIS is your justification?
THIS is the evidence you present to me to...what? exactly?

if you truly feel that you have somehow struck a blow for justice and taken a stand for moral integrity,then i submit that you have no clue what free speech really entales,nor do you understand the implications when we,as a community,start calling in the big daddy in the sky every time someone writes an offensive potty/racist or bigoted word.

and just LOOK how you consumed @gorillaman 's comment.
you made no reference to his salient point,but rather focused on ONE thing:nigger prince.

now was this appropriate?
taken singularly i would have to agree with you.
no..it is not appropriate.

but when we take our understandings of @gorillaman,who has been a contributing sifter for over 10 years,and consider his humor..which is dark and incredibly dry (like sahara dry),then with this context added to the mix,we can conclude that he was probably making a joke...you are certainly within your rights to find that joke in poor taste,and with this community,you are also within your rights (and even encouraged) to take @gorillaman to task for his poor taste.

but instead you called for big daddy in the sky to bring the hammer of justice down,and punish this dirt potty mouthed racist.his crime?
racist verbiage.

no consideration of who was writing it.
no consideration of his history on this site,which you openly admitted is a community.
you just..focused..on..the..word.

and then you preen like a peacock thinking somehow you have struck a blow of righteousness?

please sister.....you accomplished nothing except to put dag in an awkward position,and came across as a self righteous moralizer.

when you simply could have done what other sifters here actually DID.
you downvote his comment.
and if you felt so inclined,and it appears you ARE so inclined,directly call @gorillaman out for his poor choice of verbiage.

look BB,
i actually find you to be a sweetheart,with a huuuuge propensity for empathy and compassion,but every time i engage with you my sphincter tightens up like it is preparing for a colonoscopy.there is this ever-present apprehension that my words will not be taken with humanity that they are written,or the open honesty i am trying to convey.

i am sure that if we were actually sitting in a cafe,sipping that delicious coffee you guys are so proud of, i would not experience this anxiety when engaging with you,but it seems EVERY time i disagree with something you post,or an opinion i may take issue with,i offend you in some manner.

you ..and i am sure this is not done on purpose..make it incredibly difficult to disagree with something you post,because i always feel i have hurt your feelings somehow.

real or imagined...i am just being honest here.i always approach any interaction with you as if i am walking on eggshells,underlined with landmines.

i am simply disagreeing with you here.
calling for a ban on gorillaman because of a joke made in poor taste,while simultaneously disregarding his contributions to this site,and taking his personality into consideration,is simply an over-zealous reaction and in no way deserves the attention of dag.

because if gorillaman deserves to be banned for an offensive phrase,than i should be banned as well.

free speech is just that...free.
of course we are free to ridicule that speech.
yaaay free speech!

@newtboy

now don't be confusing bob with your "facts" and "logic".allow the man his delusions please.

i think the most telling of this man's incredibly cherry picked diatribe is how he declares that republicans want smaller government,while at the VERY same time applauds corporations and the military!!!

where one has totally infiltrated,purchased and now controls our legislature and the other is literally..L.I.T.E.R.A.L.L.Y..a branch of the behemoth government republicans are said to despise.

a real,classic,republican is against money in politics in the form of a multi-national corporation,because that corporation was given it's privileges FROM the government.which in theory,is representative of the people.a classic republican is also against a free-standing army that just chews up money and resources and is an utter waste in regards to it's affects to the average citizen.the military should be for defense only.

but let us remember,this is bill whittle.a master in the art of sophistry.

Awful lot of hospitals named after saints, as well as a large number of schools. Religion teaches empathy for other people, it teaches right behavior, it teaches the ten commandments, it teaches the golden rule.

Just because people fail to follow those ideas wholly you condemn everyone who believes in any of it.

To replace it you bring in some philosophical sophistry that has nothing to back it up unless it is to say that there is a spark of Godliness behind it all.

It is good that we can agree that people have an innate sense toward empathy but it's an empty box.

All you have to say is that psychotics are restrained by religion, ipso facto, anyone who believes in God is a psychotic.

I don't know too many psychotics who open hospitals, care for the sick/infirm/dying, educate the masses.

It would be more correct to consider religion one of many paths leading away from enlightenment than secularism as one leading toward it. That would usefully sidestep the sophistry involved in the rebranding of oppressive but secular ideologies as a special kind of religion. Secularists don't need to account for the actions of other secularists any more than people who aren't thieves need to answer for arsons committed by other non-thieves. Muslims, conversely, have signed up for a particular club with a particular set of club rules and practices; they are accountable.

Islam is a homogeneous whole, as much as a global movement can be. Its foundational text is intact and whole, not arbitrarily selected from masses of contradictory documents of dubious provenance. That text explicitly rejects the possibility of interpretation or allegory and there's an established, foolproof mechanism for resolving contradictions. It has a single author, really a single author rather than the fiction of the will of god being channelled through the accounts of various liars, a single founder, and a single exemplar.

The popular view of islam as "a religion that is as varied as any other in the world" is unarguably born from ignorance. It's about as variable as scientology, and substantially less reputable.

*sophistry

Well... not really.

First off, this isn't a specifically religious line of argument. Sure, the philosophers that he's quoting are indeed well known Christian philosophers. But one doesn't need to be Christian, or to be religious, or even broadly theistic in order to recognize the strength of some arguments for dualism.

So let's start with QualiaSoup's repeated comments about what would constitute a coherent account of dualism. His constant question is what an account of dualism would even look like without a physical account. For example, "How would an agent with no physical manifestation differ from no agent at all?"But this borders on circularity--if the only kind of coherent account that exists is a physical account, then there clearly cannot be a coherent account of dualism. Which is to say that QualiaSoup appears to be rejecting dualist accounts because they are dualist. Which is circular reasoning. If QualiaSoup wishes to advance such an objection, then it demonstrates nothing but the state of his beliefs about dualism, and says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the substance dualist theory of mind.


Moreover, he consistently conflates consciousness with cognition. Cognition pertains to the processing of data. An entity that is not conscious could certainly go through processes we would recognize as cognitive. Consciousness pertains to the awareness or the internal experience of, among other things, the objects of cognition. Even if cognition were largely handled by a physical brain, one could still assert a non-physical consciousness without any contradictions.

QualiaSoup does not seem to realize that substance dualism all but requires that damage to the brain result in bizarre functioning. One of the most consistent elements of dualist theories since the 17th century has been an understanding that the mind and the brain have causal relationships with each other. Pointing out the bizarre effects of brain damage on mental functioning no more disproves dualism than pointing out that drinking too much alcohol gets you drunk--the dualist already understands that these kinds of relationships must hold, and there are already the broad outlines of an account in place in dualism.

In his discussions of Swinburne's modal argument for dualism, QualiaSoup fundamentally misunderstands possibility and "apparent conceivability." Let's quote from the revised edition of Swinburne's Evolution of the Soul:

"The only arguments which can be given to show some supposition to be logically possible are arguments which spell it out, which tell in detail a story of what it would be like for it to be true and do not seem to involve any contradictions, i.e. arguments from apparent conceivability. Apparent conceivability
is evidence (though not of course conclusive evidence) of logical possibility." (pp. 324-325)

QualiaSoup's objection is clearly a straw-man argument when you look at the full passage. The counter-example of the time-traveler fails the "apparent conceivability" test immediately because it involves an obvious contradiction. Which is to say that, by Swinburne's definition, QS's example is NOT apparently conceivable. Moreover, QualiaSoup clearly misunderstands the notion of "logical possibility." A statement can be logically possible without being physically possible. It is logically possible that the moon is made out of cheese--there are no logical contradictions that would follow--despite its being a physical impossibility. Swinburne's argument has nothing to do with physical possibility--only logical possibility.

tl;dr
QualiaSoup needs to take some more philosophy classes. Philosophy is totally badass.

>> ^hpqp:

Once again QualiaSoup delivers a quality take-down of religious sophistry.

And thanks for this quality.
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Once again QualiaSoup delivers a *quality take-down of *religious sophistry.

Once again QualiaSoup delivers a *quality take-down of *religious sophistry.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Tell you what, the day a single preacher, nun or even believer gets physically assaulted by a homosexual for their beliefs, you will have something approaching a point.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/anger-over-prop-8-erupts-in-san-fr
ancisco/nKjWD/
http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/80220/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Xb-au-wpU
Not that I expect you to concede the matter, but to imply that no gay person EVER in the history of humanity has attacked a Christian because of what they believe is pure sophistry. There are bad actors on both sides of the issue, and since Christians are the big-dog in the US of course there is a lot more bad acting on thier side. I merely point out that there is an ugly underside to the LBGT community, and pin-heads like Savage show it. If the real message is true tolerance - which it SHOULD be - then both sides need to clamp down on thier offenders. Yeah - Christians need to repent and start acting more Christlike too. You can disagree with the gay lifestyle and not have to persecute it.


Ok, I will concede that you have "something approaching a point". I don't condone violence of that type.
And while two wrongs don't make a right, frankly, I can understand where they're coming from.

And just for the record... Even the NSPA and JEA (the hosts of the speech) condemn Savage and pretty much call what he did bullying...

http://studentpressblogs.org/nspa/?p=363

"In his attempt to denounce bullying, Mr. Savage belittled the faith of others – an action that we do not support. Ridicule of others’ faith has no place in our programs, any more than ridicule of the LGBT community would."

They get a round of applause for an ACTUAL apology, as opposed to the load of bull Savage puked up trying to 'nuance' his way out of an apology.

won't even begin to try to explain to you how ironic it is

Perhaps - then you see the point. You took the bait. You see - how is is possible for MY generalized comments about liberals to be hypocritical and ironic, but Savage's comments are 'nuanced'? You can't have it both ways. Just admit it. Savage was a hypocritical, bullying jerk who stuck his foot in his mouth and showed the world he's a bigot. He should just apologize for it. A REAL apology - not the stupid "sorry you don't really understand me..." crap he spit out.

Tell you what, the day a single preacher, nun or even believer gets physically assaulted by a homosexual for their beliefs, you will have something approaching a point.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/anger-over-prop-8-erupts-in-san-francisco/nKjWD/
http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/80220/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Xb-au-wpU

Not that I expect you to concede the matter, but to imply that no gay person EVER in the history of humanity has attacked a Christian because of what they believe is pure sophistry. There are bad actors on both sides of the issue, and since Christians are the big-dog in the US of course there is a lot more bad acting on thier side. I merely point out that there is an ugly underside to the LBGT community, and pin-heads like Savage show it. If the real message is true tolerance - which it SHOULD be - then both sides need to clamp down on thier offenders. Yeah - Christians need to repent and start acting more Christlike too. You can disagree with the gay lifestyle and not have to persecute it.

@chilaxe, What is this inferiority complex you have against black men? Did some black man steal some girl you liked? Did some kid beat you up after school? Did some thug steal your car? Or do you have yearnings you can't fulfill?

Frankly, I don't have time to teach you statistics or probability. Suffice to say that the paragraph you posted is full of fallacious uses of both. If this drivel were submitted to me, I would give the writer an "F", based on the math alone. For you, someone who claims to use statistics in his job, to trust this sophistry, makes me question your credentials.

You are the only one making light of your friend's assault. You are the one using your friend's experience to peddle your racist theories. I don't see how she is more safe by avoiding all black men. Using your fucked up reasoning, the AG of California or the President of the US is 1200% more likely to murder your friend or take their iphone.

@messenger

If you wish to dispute mainstream economists regarding straight-forward issues, please provide other sources.


So now 99% doesn't mean 99%. Brilliant. You would equally support Republicans saying "We are the 99%. We represent the 99% of the population that suffers from the importing of long-term poverty via open borders. Any references to 99% are no longer a numerical reference, although we'll pretend they are when it's convenient."

Such sophistry is embarrassing. If it was so easy to not be fooled by this linguistic trickery, you yourself wouldn't have been fooled when you titled this video in a misleading way. I know from your past comments that you're one of the most mature and intelligent people on the sift, so I can only imagine the mental states of the rest of the sift.

The US is entering a prolonged period of economic decline because liberals practiced population replacement by importing 80 million permanently poor and less educable people in the last 40 years --precisely when unskilled labor has been rendered useless by global labor arbitrage and ever increasing automation. If you want to import people, import them from north-east Asia next time, and they'll be contributing more to society per capita than white people within a generation. All statistics are bunk when they don't take this population replacement into account.



Everything you hope to happen is going to fail, just as your ideology destroyed the California economy (which you'll never be honest about) despite it's ultra-high taxes and liberal policies. There is no reform movement within liberalism from the perspective of intelligence, so we can safely assume liberalism will remain frozen in time as it has been for the last 40 years.

I should probably stop commenting on videosift. Compared to the Silicon Valley people I spend my time with, videosift culture appears to be permanently anti-success. That's why they need income redistribution in the first place. There are never enough talented 21st century workers in Silicon Valley because it's so on the right side of history. People should learn from the culture here.

A rather simplistic, populist bit of tripe.

To start with, if this guy thinks that things were so great back in the 1960s then maybe he should think again. The 'middle class' he talks about in the 60s was a far smaller entity than it is in 2011. In the 60s the country had a higher proportion of people in the 'lower' class. Since that time, the average american family has gotten proportionally wealthier - not poorer - and enjoys a higher standard of living, more property, and greater economic freedom than ever before. The entire premise of this video is nothing but an anachronistic fantasy.

The pap about families easily affording homes, cars, education, and retirement in the 60s on a single income is also a load of bull feathers. Middle class stiffs had to make tough choices back then too, and didn't have the dosh to just toss around money like that. His cutsey chalkboard claptrap cartoons of a smiling 'middle class' family easily affording any expense they wanted is stupidly wrong.

And this moron acts like people on a single income TODAY can't afford a home, car, college, and retirement. I am the lone wage-earner in my family. Not ONCE have I gotten government assistance or a handout on the dole. And I own a home, 2 cars, have $13,000 in savings for the kids, and I'm on track to be a millionaire when I retire. How did I do it? Because I'm not stupid. The middle class doesn't have to go into debt for these things - and this JERK'S premise that MC families have to rack up huge debt to live life is absolute specious.

And unions - yeesh. I noticed carefully that this obviously neolib goombah didn't bother mentioning that the over 26 TRILLION dollars in debt this nation has only exists because of private and public sector union unfunded liabilities. Corporations send world overseas because unions ARE making the cost of business in the U.S. (not to mention the fact that we're #1 in the world in corporate taxation) unfeasible for many industries. And he also doesn't mention the decrease in union size is only in the private sector, but that PUBLIC sector unions have swollen in size to gargantuan, slovenly, grotesque levels - and are (of course) literally breaking America's bank with thier costs. Of course companies outsource labor when paying a US employee costs them 100X as much money for only a fraction of the output. Only in the neolib Planet Fantasy does everyone get 100,000 a year for pushing brooms, assembling widgets, and other unskilled jobs that any reasonably trained lemming can perform.

He also doesn't mention that the top 50% of American taxpayers are paying 95% of the taxes, and that the "middle class" that he disingenously claims to speak for is actually paying almost NO INCOME TAXES at all. The bottom 50% of wage-earners (that's the middle class for you neolib idiots out there) only pay 5% of the taxes. How much more can the you burden the top 50% with before they pull up stakes and leave? That's the problem New York City, Chicago, LA, and many other neolib Meccas are facing. They have raised taxes so high on "the rich" (which Obama defines as anyone earning over 200K) that they are leaving these leftist enclaves, which in turn are literally dying on the vine under the weight of their own stupid policies and union debt.

But I do agree with some of the comments about lobbyists and the tax code. I do believe that is a problem, but it is a GOVERNMENT problem not a lobbyist problem. The government is the new "Robber Baron", when 100 years ago the government was protecting people from Robber barons. But of course this guy doesn't focus on the fact that it is GOVERNMENT making these stupid laws, and not companies. In fact, many companies hated the repeal of Glass-Steagall but government wanted it so Barney Frank could have is precious UFFODUBBLE HOWZING! Banks never wanted to be forced to give loans to people who they never would have touched in the 1960s - but Government played the Race Card with accusations of redlining and forced it through.

The problems with income disparity people whine about are largely a phantom. More people in the US are wealthier than they've ever been in the nation's history. Carping about how much MORE the uber-rich have than the middle class is pure sophistry.

"I might have been more willing to talk with you if you didn't start out your post with a thinly veiled ad hominem opening about me not being able to think clearly."

Ahem, Ad hominem.

I was hoping you would bring some evidence to bear in support of your argument. "You're a meanie, so I don't have to support my original assertions or address the content of your arguments, neener neener!" How delightfully convenient for you. I find it rather depressing. You can always apologize and retract those statements if you feel they may have been unreasonable/indefensible, y'know.

"the absolutist language that is most likely keeping the people who need to hear what they have to say most from listening)."

Oh, you mean like the absolutist language you used in calling far more nuanced men than yourself or I a bunch of fundamentalists, virtually unevidenced? I think its far more rude to literally ignore the content of one's speech, as you did, and focus on tertiary factors such as the way in which its delivered. That, to me, is childish and petty and not deserving of the respect due for those who actually argue in good faith and don't get hung up on trivial stylistic differences and then feign righteous indignation on behalf of their poor, grievously besmirched honor.

LOL, why am I not surprised that you would use my intentional rudeness towards you, a reaction to your rather "disrespectful" caricatures if I may say so myself, as another bullet-point in support of your sweeping indictment of those damn fundamentalists atheists! Self-reinforcing much?

"I find their arguments divisive and, while they certainly are entertaining and their ideas appeal to certain atheists, they probably don't do much to get the already religious to re-examine their values."

Maybe, maybe not (and that is solely granted that we are talking about the actual Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, and not the straw men you've constructed) . See, its careless stuff like this that really upsets me, instead of reserving judgment until there's evidence in favor of the notion either way(whatever the hell happened to the phrase "I don't know" in the absence of y'know, knowing?) you automatically jump from one assertion to the next through nothing but sheer word-play/weasel words. One cannot internally induct out the reality of things just because they can't be arsed to actually find out for themselves (often due to being too enamored with often incorrect notions of what "common sense" would dictate) and then expect others to sit there and blithely accept their sophistry.

"If I am not thinking clearly, then what I have to say can't possibly be worth taking the time to write and then have you read and respond to. "

You know, that's not true at all. I'm trying to help demonstrate the obvious prejudice you hold against the so-called New Atheists for the sake of yourself and anyone else who comes across this. To leave your original statements unchallenged would indicate a silent consensus on the matter to any unassuming passerby.

I can only really urge you again to read the article I originally linked. I've really nothing else to add if its only going to be met with further stone-walling.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There is no sophistry here. None.
Whittle laid out the argument perfectly, starting with historical precedents and touching on the long list of conflicts caused by muslims right up till today. Add to the timeline the noncoincident fading of Europe.
No honest seeker looking to replace Western Civilization with something better would choose defective and brutal islam, with its backa$$wards sharia law and failure to produce anything of material or intellectual value.
If there's anything Whittle said that's patently false, do tell.


then you have no idea the meaning of sophistry:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry
the argument does not have to be based in lies..in fact..an argument based in sophism tends be true but it is a cleverly disguised manipulation.many times avoiding certain pertinent facts or cherry picking others to promote a particular ideology.

mr whittles argument would make sense to someone not armed with historical knowledge or someone bursting with nationalistic pride and therefore easily manipulated to adopt mr whittles argument believing it a sound argument.

until they meet me that is.

dont be so quick to swallow the words of others QM.
while mr whittle does make some salient points his argument is pure sophism.
because he totally IGNORES massive amounts of historical data and instead speaks to the most fearful and easily swayed and i find that deplorable.