He's a hero?!?!?

Really? What piece of legislation has he brought up, that classified him as a hero? What has he really done for his community that make him a hero? Hero is a person who does his job without looking for spotlight, person who goes about taking care of his family. Hero is a person who does not tweet about his "Package"

Guess what people, he was never in politics help anyone except himself. Anytime you heard about him, he was just putting out sound bite. He was just a publicity seeking spot light hound.

All he ever did was just yell out loud and looked for publicity. "Crass disregard for Bullshit" please he was full of bullshit.

If this piece of shit is a hero to you liberal, you deserves this scumbag.

Exactly. Deepak's argument is nothing more than a sound bite based on a flimsy premise. I think this guy exposed exactly how flimsy Chopra's premise is. Deepak should have worded his argument more carefully. It may not be as catchy and compact as his original argument, but hey, neither are life's complexities. Let him defend himself; don't do the job for him.

Why does anyone here want to give this 'new age' spirituality and alternative medicine pusher the benefit of the doubt anyway? Screw him. >> ^bcglorf:

The sad part is that the guy probably thinks he totally demolished his entire argument when he really just got a nice play on words in.
Deepak's argument was "all belief is a cover up for insecurity". If he doesn't really mean ALL belief, his argument is really just a nice play on words. So, I would say the speaker really did demolish the entire argument, since the entire argument was nothing more than a play on words itself.

I agree with this. Our whole society is getting so polarized, so quick to paint people into sound bites, if I might mix my metaphors.

In reply to this comment by vaporlock:
It's clear from this video that his first thought is to help the poor guy. We have all of YouTube to prove that the average nit-wit would have sat there dumbfounded at best. I think there is not so much a "WikiLeak Fanbase" as people who are craving the truth, and the truth is that Assange is not a monster like he's being portrayed by 99.9% of the news.

^ I 100% agree with dgandhi.

Nice interview. Great to hear more than sound bites.

That lady actually hit it on the head. "You need an outlet...".

I guess if you cut up any Fox report to small enough sound bites you can find some truth.

That's quite the persecution complex you've got there Quantum

November 2nd didn't really mean a damned thing other than how much of a sound bite nation America is.

You want to talk about comedy? What about all the morons who went out and bought a ton of guns and ammo the day Obama was elected because of the "fear" and "panic" of Obama supposedly planning to have more restrictive gun laws

Does freedom win? Hardly, but if you worked in the firearms industry, im sure the profits were nice. More profits = more democracy right?

Right?

lol love how they deliberately left out the sound bites in some scenes. The film just leaves you there with full blown awkwardness, out in the open air, fuming. LOL LOL!

>> ^mkknyr:

I'm sorry, but as much as I dislike Glenn Beck, this clip smacks of the same fear-mongering and out-of-context manipulative sound bites that make me distrust Fox News. There's no discussion, there's no reasonable discourse here. It's pure emotion, and I won't accept it as an intellectually honest perspective.


I do agree with you and noticed it myself while viewing.

Positive Criticism: for those that don't are as keen, could you cite an example or two of media perversion from this clip? I'm curious of what discussions it might bring up.

I'm sorry, but as much as I dislike Glenn Beck, this clip smacks of the same fear-mongering and out-of-context manipulative sound bites that make me distrust Fox News. There's no discussion, there's no reasonable discourse here. It's pure emotion, and I won't accept it as an intellectually honest perspective.

First off, major LOL, I'm an atheist, so thanks for assuming I'm Christian but I ain't.

Ok, I'm wrong. You're not religious but you certainly come off as excessively and disproportionately apologetic/sympathetic towards it. Sort of an anecdote that being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean one can think clearly about all things, but is that because I've been unable to understand you or is that because you've been unable to properly lay-out-on-the-table your position?.


I believe Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and those like them are doing atheists everywhere a disservice with their absolutist language (i.e. all religious people are crazy, stupid, etc., all religions are evil, etc., and so on and so forth). This makes atheists everywhere look like some kind of reverse hate-mongers.

This is a modification of your previous statement that they were just as fundamentalist as those they criticize, which I think is a tad more reasonable but still way off the mark. Please show the evidence that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, or Dennett is as fundamentalist and hateful as the religious fundamentalists they criticize (or have made blanket statements about all religious people). This is a statement you made earlier and you should have no problem backing this up. I'm pissed off because you're carelessly saying stuff like this as if its an established fact. It is not. You have all your work ahead of you.

Also, Dawkins et al. do NOT just run around crudely saying ALL religious people are stupid, deluded, or idiots. This is a strawman. They reserve their scorn of the religious mindset in proportion to their nastiness/harm to society. They're very careful to not make blanket statements regarding those who, through no choice of their own, were brought up religiously and have not been able to shake it off.

Yes, people who believe things for which there is no evidence ARE deluded, irregardless of the offense taken at such a statement. You should already understand that these men value truth over comfortable lies, and when informing someone of their delusions (for example, taking calls from a religious listener on a radio station) they (with not the not surprising at all exception of Hitchens) tend to be very explicit in explaining that they aren't being contemptuous or disdainful when they say say this, it is simply the truth. They do not just outright rudely call people idiots or morons. I'd like to see an example of this as I've never seen it.


It is exactly the kind of language of the fundamentalist opponents they profess to hate. Think about radical Islam--we're all Western devils because we don't subscribe to Sharia law, right?

Exactly, eh? Well then you should have no problem supplying some quotes with the full context (no quotemines) that measure up then. Regurgitating ignorant, second-hand blanket statements don't count.


The link I posted that compared Hitchens to Malcom X is spot on. Malcom X got a lot of media attention for his radical views, but in the end what did he accomplish? We don't celebrate Malcom X Day, you'll notice. Martin Luther King's Jr.'s message of cooperation and mutual understanding is what moved people's hearts on both sides of the divide and got us moving forward as a country, not Malcom X's divisiveness.

This comparison is vague as hell. One could replace Hitchens with most any influential/controversial thinker and it would still sound as if it were authoritative. Who the hell is saying Christopher Hitchens HAS to be that guy and why? There's plenty of room for all kinds, the MLKs and the Malcom-Xs. Basically you want Christopher to be something other than what he is.


Confronting and dealing with those people is going to require cooperation and dialogue between both the religious and non-religious people, between theists and atheists, between gnostics and agnostics.

You'll find no disagreement there from me. We only differ in our approach.


The failure of incredibly intelligent men like Hitchens to see this and their insistence on furthering the divisiveness on this issue is a great tragedy in my opinion. They don't see the forest through the trees. You want to prevent religion from dominating the political and cultural scene? So do a lot of religious people (the vast majority in most Western states). And their numbers VASTLY outnumber the atheists. Insulting those people who are clearly your potential allies hardly seems like a good way to go about getting them to see your point of view."

Do you really believe those leaders of the major religious institutions will relinquish their incommensurable power and malign influence on society if atheists (and the common people in general) just start fawning and kissing their asses and showing undue respect to these self-appointed, inherently corrupt, deluded arbiters of a lying morality? Pointing out their harmful ideology is hurting the cause of reason? You're placing far too much importance on tone and not truth.


When was the last time someone called you an idiot and you just sat there calmly and said, "You know what, you're right! I AM an idiot!

Provide some examples of the New Atheist's doing literally this and you may have a point. They don't. I have never once seen Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, or Harris calling saying "You're stupid, an idiot, a moron." UNLESS they (I really think only Hitchens would qualify here) were thoroughly provoked by an incredulous and ignorant bigot. More to the point, if one infers from the sum total of the reasoned arguments leveled against them that the only conclusion is that they must be an idiot for believing nonsense then that does NOT reflect on the person making the argument.

It seems as if you want moderate religious people to be coddled and not treated as the adults. Kid's gloves are for kids.


On a side note, I included the clip from Hitchens' brother because he points out the fact that Hitchens has built himself a tower, secluded himself inside of it, and is simply hurling missiles at anything that moves outside without bothering to try to engage in real dialogue.

And that's simply his opinion, in which he didn't really even attempt to qualify. Family members are probably the least objective source of information when it comes to the psychological state of another member that one could possibly ask for! Ask any practicing psychiatrist. The only reason this is authoritative to you at all is because it perfectly reaffirms a bias you've already held. This seems to be a common theme here.


I think the clip in this vid from the Glenn Beck show is the most telling of this, where Beck is trying to tell him that he doesn't consider Hitchens an enemy and Hitchens is actively trying to make Beck an enemy. He's not interested in real dialogue (to be fair to Hitchens, neither are many of his debate opponents)

<groan> He's not TRYING to make Beck his enemy. It'd be like me constantly provoking and demonizing and lying about someone and then wondering why he/she would have the nerve to not be my friend, it beggars belief! Beck has made himself an enemy of the reasonable, not the other way around and he most definitely isn't trying to "have a dialogue". I'm really starting to question why I even bothered responding at this point.


He's interested in making smart-alec comments and getting good sound bites--which is fine for an entertainer but doesn't get my respect for him as a thinker.

He loves a good debate, why is this surprising? It is what he is good at and his life's blood. Being entertaining does not by fiat exclude the substance of his arguments, which he is able to deftly supply in spades with incredible recall and erudition. Since you haven't argued the substance but merely the style in which its delivered (and shown yourself to have not even bothered to read their written works before you impugn your own personal bias onto them), you basically have just openly admitted that it isn't substance you place importance on in a good thinker but TONE. Well, to that I say, good luck.

Wow. Where'd all that anger come from? Which posts are you referring to exactly so I could reply more thoroughly? Maybe PM me with the details?

First off, major LOL, I'm an atheist, so thanks for assuming I'm Christian but I ain't. I believe Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and those like them are doing atheists everywhere a disservice with their absolutist language (i.e. all religious people are crazy, stupid, etc., all religions are evil, etc., and so on and so forth). This makes atheists everywhere look like some kind of reverse hate-mongers. It is exactly the kind of language of the fundamentalist opponents they profess to hate. Think about radical Islam--we're all Western devils because we don't subscribe to Sharia law, right?

The link I posted that compared Hitchens to Malcom X is spot on. Malcom X got a lot of media attention for his radical views, but in the end what did he accomplish? We don't celebrate Malcom X Day, you'll notice. Martin Luther King's Jr.'s message of cooperation and mutual understanding is what moved people's hearts on both sides of the divide and got us moving forward as a country, not Malcom X's divisiveness.

I absolutely agree there is a serious problem in the world in that some people try to use their religion to push their own worldly agendas (whether it be a political grab for power or what-not). Confronting and dealing with those people is going to require cooperation and dialogue between both the religious and non-religious people, between theists and atheists, between gnostics and agnostics. The failure of incredibly intelligent men like Hitchens to see this and their insistence on furthering the divisiveness on this issue is a great tragedy in my opinion. They don't see the forest through the trees. You want to prevent religion from dominating the political and cultural scene? So do a lot of religious people (the vast majority in most Western states). And their numbers VASTLY outnumber the atheists. Insulting those people who are clearly your potential allies hardly seems like a good way to go about getting them to see your point of view. When was the last time someone called you an idiot and you just sat there calmly and said, "You know what, you're right! I AM an idiot!"

On a side note, I included the clip from Hitchens' brother because he points out the fact that Hitchens has built himself a tower, secluded himself inside of it, and is simply hurling missiles at anything that moves outside without bothering to try to engage in real dialogue. I think the clip in this vid from the Glenn Beck show is the most telling of this, where Beck is trying to tell him that he doesn't consider Hitchens an enemy and Hitchens is actively trying to make Beck an enemy. He's not interested in real dialogue (to be fair to Hitchens, neither are many of his debate opponents). He's interested in making smart-alec comments and getting good sound bites--which is fine for an entertainer but doesn't get my respect for him as a thinker.

Hope that answers your question. I'm not going to respond to your other comments because, if you read my post again, you'd see clearly I was not at all making an attempt to defend any particular religion or religious activity.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

"I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against."
Examples, please. Put up or shut up. I am really getting sick and tired of you leaving your ineffable statements on video's regarding atheism without even the pretension of backing them up. How in the hell are you to persuade anyone by being so vague? Please show how Dawkins et al. are just as fundamentalist as those they deride. Show us this great evidence to the contrary. Those links you provided don't really help your argument at all. Where's the evidence that Christianity or ANY religion is true or that there is any GOOD reason for believing in something for which there is no evidence? Peter Hitchens lamenting the fact that everyone isn't a Christian or being afraid of God's wrath because he looked at a painting is NOT sufficient. Neither are his arguments that you must have an extensive knowledge of theology to make an assessment about the REAL WORLD claims that religion so carelessly expects everyone to accept by default. You're basically taking his word for it because hey, he's Christopher Hitchen's brother, he can't possibly be full of it! Which is a pretty weird inversion of argument from authority, the only reason it is authoritative at all is because he is related to the dude you think is so NOT authoritative, because I'm not seeing any coherent arguments from ole Petey.
Neither is the second link was which was just a bunch of waffling nonsense that was misleading and all over the place and inherently WRONG on the differences Chris has gone to great lengths to make between attacking religion and those who vary in their level of involvement in which they practice/contribute to it as an institution in his books. To compare him to a young white-hating Malcom-X is sheer hyperbole and a cheap caricature. It was so full of "gotcha!" moments that could only be called so because the author either didn't understand what he was reading or just flat out didn't read them (maybe he read the SparkNotes versions?); the article is based on a limited, superficial understanding of the New Atheist's position.
My question to you is: Why are you lying for Jebus? Is it intentional or can you just not help yourself?

Palin: "We're going to fix it!!"

How?

"By fixing it?"

But these are human beings. How will we fix these problems without putting people through terrible circumstances?

"We're gonna, you betcha!!"

---

You would really think she would have gotten beyond sound bites by now and at least given thought to how she will stand on her key issues. She seems no more prepared now as she did back in that disastrous katie couric interview...

>> ^Sarzy:

Is this a meme of some sort? I don't get it.


Yeah, it's a meme. It started on Ventrilo, when kids would hack into vent servers and blast super loud and annoying sound bites, just like this one here. Want more? go to youtube and search for ventrilo harassment.

As the Xbox Live sound bites shows, it's a shame the video game audience isn't as progressive as the games themselves.

On a lighter note, I couldn't help lol'ing at "and put the baby on the floor... where it belongs."

I may only be dreaming, but I like to think that even without the government forcing businesses to allow all races, that eventually those businesses that did discriminate would simply go out of business. Like Rand said, it's just not good business practice.

The question to me is, would our culture develop faster (toward racial equality as well as many other topics) without the "enlightened" pushing us toward the future? Is it possible that legislating an enlightened attitude simply suppresses the ignorance and bigotry so that it lingers and festers? Is it possible that without the civil rights legislation that bigotry will disappear faster? I don't know. Probably not. But it is what libertarians believe, and they have every right to believe that without being lumped in with the bigots. I wish it were true, so I see where Rand is coming from.

BTW, this is modern politics. A politician can't always give a straight answer to a nuanced question, because an out-of-context sound bite can ruin a career.