Depends on who's version you use exactly, it has had many different installments. Personally, my favorite are Spinoza, Leibniz and Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer's being the most interesting to me, as it tied in with Hinduism and didn't even intend to. One thing every single one of the arguments fails, however, is to point any any particular God, especially Spinoza. So even if it were true, it is unintelligible to choose a particular God based on its logical assertions, and thus, left back at square one of agnosticism.

Time and time again, I see conservatives struggle to understand that their general worldview is completely subjective. You see it in Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism' which is anything but. You see it in the Christian right's 'Moral Relativism' which comes with so many subjective assumptions. You see it in right wing 'Libertarianism' which assumes that a very narrow and specific political-economic worldview IS liberty. You see it in scripture, which is taken as law and revealed truth.

I think these conservatives are unable to empathize with anything they cannot directly experience themselves. "I'm white and experience little to no negative consequences because of it. Therefore, all people must experience little to no negative consequences due to their race." Then they find a quote from Larry Elder or Bill Cosby that confirms this bias and think, "See? All those other black people are just a bunch of whiners."

I think this is how blankfist is able to see the words 'cracker' and 'nigger' as the same thing, despite the vast historical, social and political differences between the two words. It's the same way he and other conservatives are able to see scientific consensus on global climate change and corporate anti-science PR as equitable. Fair and Balanced (not to mention he's been submitting a lot of FOX NEWS over the past year.)

I also find it interesting that as much lip service as blankfist pays to anti-authoritarianism, he fails to see the authoritarianism of whites, of males and of rich people in this country. It's extra ironic when you consider that the government for which we both loathe is comprised primarily of rich white males. Put the pieces together, my cracker!

Conservatives just have too much psychological baggage when it comes to racism (sexism, homophobia or other types of bigotry). Just to get to square one would require hacking through a million acre jungle of psychology with a machete. It's the kind of thing that will never happen unless an individual conservative has the will to make it happen for him (or her ) self

In short, this conversation is futile.

You seem to keep insisting that there are only two types of people involved in a debate? When, in the history of debate, has it been about trying to sway proponents of either side of an argument? A debate is about attempting to sway an audience. I don't care if it's about religion, gay marriage, climate change, going to war, health care, eating fast food, or whether you should or shouldn't wear white after Labor Day! You are absolutely right, Ray is probably never going to be swayed from his position, and neither will anyone entrenched in either side, but there is a host of people listening who may be somewhere in the grey middle. That is who debate is really for, and unless you want them to go to the other insane, but incredibly vocal, and well organized, side of the fence, then you better be prepared to make a strong case for your greener pastures. Complacency solves nothing.>> ^VoodooV:

Since the idea of a god as we currently know it is a product of our imagination, someone is always going to come up with some imaginative "explanation" that supposedly trumps science's current understanding of the universe.
God uses lightning to show that he is angry with you...
God exists because the stars revolve around us...
God exists because a banana fits in your hand nicely...
All someone has to do is say "God made evolution" and we're back to square one again. It's like a comic book. Every so often they revise the origin stories. Iron Man's origin story originally took place in Vietnam. Now it's Afghanistan.
Debating Creationists is a waste of time. It lowers you, it elevates them and nothing worthwhile happens.

Since the idea of a god as we currently know it is a product of our imagination, someone is always going to come up with some imaginative "explanation" that supposedly trumps science's current understanding of the universe.

God uses lightning to show that he is angry with you...
God exists because the stars revolve around us...
God exists because a banana fits in your hand nicely...

All someone has to do is say "God made evolution" and we're back to square one again. It's like a comic book. Every so often they revise the origin stories. Iron Man's origin story originally took place in Vietnam. Now it's Afghanistan.

Debating Creationists is a waste of time. It lowers you, it elevates them and nothing worthwhile happens.

Sounds like the illness in general goes along with what I've seen my brother do. I guess mono-polar means they are in a constant manic state or vice versa and never come off that. My brother is most prominent when he's manic....because frankly he's just annoying as can be. He can do everything better than you, but he never finishes anything. You can't talk him out of things, blah blah... He got locked up for a bit due to the drug possession and being on house arrest because of his outbursts in court. No one could stand to leave him in the house due to his constant yammering and then he started spending all his money on frivolous crap....canceled his health insurance that he wasn't even paying. My parents had me kill the internet connection to his room, the phone line, and started me on terminating his cell phone so he couldn't fuck up anything else. And before they got the cell phone away from him, he called the police on my parents. He was ordered by the judge to take medication, he eventually refused to comply and when my parents finally admitted he was not taking his meds...they took two days to come get him. During which he didn't believe it, thought my parents were screwing with him. He was shocked to see the police at the door and refused to leave the house for them because he was on house arrest. I mean it's like a comedy skit if you didn't realize that he was so totally twisted in his thinking that everything he did was perfectly correct. And it wasn't but maybe 2-3 days in jail after being removed from the house and held until trial, 5-6 guys kicked his ass. They broke his shoulder badly enough that they had to get a surgical consult and multiple scans to determine if it needed operated on. His arm was essentially useless for almost 2 months...he couldn't lift it much beyond his waist. And they knocked him out, split his head open on the floor..... he's still trying to get his case heard....that he should haven't been put in the public population since they had never had him in there before when he was acting in the same irrational manner.

Even now with treatment, none of what he did above is wrong in his eyes. He was in jail because the police decided to put him in jail without provocation. He had the right to spend all his money because he earned it, never mind he had a lot of bills due to all of this plus a tow and storage bill he still owed for getting caught with drugs in a vehicle that was my parents. He had the right to cancel his insurance, because it wasn't doing anything for him anyway. And keep in mind the insurance is what covered the majority of his therapies to deal with his arm...the jail would not repay anything but the initial visit/consult. He still won't admit that it was stupid as hell to cancel his insurance with everything going on and them wanting him to get medical treatment on his mental disorder by court order. Calling the cops on my parents for cutting off his net access, cell phone and telephone in his room......that was my parents fault because they violated his "civil rights". Never mind the fact that they didn't have to consent to house arrest to get him out of jail or that he was a TOTAL asshole during that whole period and for months prior. It was never his fault......and still to this day isn't his fault. Even for a lot of the dumb shit he does now, but at least you can convince him to stop doing it.

It's literally like trying to deal with a child or delusional elderly person, but he has all the rights of an adult and the physical strength to really hurt someone if it came to that. The police won't/can't act unless you have guardianship over a person in this circumstance or they pose an immediate threat to others or themselves. I saw the cops trying to help, they would try to insult him and push him toward action instead of words. To the outside observer it would seem like they were picking the fight because they are bullies, but the choice was "get him help" or "remove him from the house with no where to go in a really fucked up mental state". It was clear he would be dead within a month if he was left to his own devices, and the jail beating was just an example of that. People wouldn't tolerate his bullshit, and he couldn't comprehend any of it.

>> ^Sagemind:

Also to note: There is no cure for this this.
You don't wake up one day and think clearly - this is something that will follow him around for the rest of his life.
Yes, there are prescriptions that can be taken to help balance out the brain chemistry. And only if you can get him to take them. Even once he is accepting treatment, it can go sideways at any time. And when it does, it's an awful chore to get back to square one. He may never "Look Back" on this and see what we see.
Sad but true....

Also to note: There is no cure for this this.
You don't wake up one day and think clearly - this is something that will follow him around for the rest of his life.
Yes, there are prescriptions that can be taken to help balance out the brain chemistry. And only if you can get him to take them. Even once he is accepting treatment, it can go sideways at any time. And when it does, it's an awful chore to get back to square one. He may never "Look Back" on this and see what we see.

Sad but true....

I have not heard so many condensed clichés in a while...

What a bunch of baloney.. no borders eh? Free movement of population sounds great on paper, but there seems to be a disparity in how well different populations manage their respective landscapes. Seems to me the migration would be pretty one sided.

This unidirectional movement of people causes considerable global societal problems. Namely, how can a handful of nations possible accommodate the gargantuan number of failed populations worldwide? And what is to be done once those ineptly populated lands have been vacated?

How, for instance, would the municipal government of Madrid react were it to discover that one fine Tuesday 2,000,000 Algerians had decided to set up camp. I wonder how well primary schools would be equipped to handle such an influx.

For argument's sake, say these Algerians are magically net benefit taxpayers and there were enough money to go around after the next population census to determine in which parts of the city they need to build more schools. How about if in the months subsequent to the census 3,000,000 Nigerians decide to make Madrid their home? Back to square one with a social machine completely unprepared to deal with artificial and anachronistic population surges.

As a side note, you understand why population surveys are taken right?

But the root of this problem is far more important: Do the landmasses we call Europe and North America endow its inhabitants with magical properties? Is the air we breathe and the soil we toil any different from elsewhere?

Obviously not. There's something we're doing right and they're doing wrong. The best we can do is share our knowledge with the world, not poach their populations.

Liberty and prosperity? Yes, for everyone. And every nation.

There's just so much blatant mind-numbing naïveté and grandiose sounding vacuum-filled ideas in this video I don't even know where to begin. I can't help but feel compassion (not pity) for the childish part of our minds this drivel appeals to.

The sad thing is most people feel like the man who made this clip. We deserve out fate.

It's time for Europeans and North-Americans to start thinking with logic once again. Using our bleeding hearts is a death wish.

>> ^cybrbeast:

Why do paratroopers still use round parachutes and not the square ones which can be steered?


I think it is because when they all jump in such close proximity to each other they would be in more danger of collisions if they were all steering around independently. I don't know for sure but I bet some branches of the military have steerable chutes for some types of missions.

Good thing that drop wasn't in combat. It would really suck to be a pinata in a firefight.

>> ^cybrbeast:

Why do paratroopers still use round parachutes and not the square ones which can be steered?


perhaps cost, and maybe training it needs additional training...or more cost.

Why do paratroopers still use round parachutes and not the square ones which can be steered?

>> ^blankfist:

No way. Republicans, or neocons, for the most part like the military and police spending. They talk about less government, but they tend to believe in strong national defense and strong police forces. Strong is typically equated to the amount of funds.

Actually, one of the things liberals got mad at Bush about is that he cut back funding for US police, while spending quite a hefty sum on Iraqi police forces (like, actual Iraqi police departments).

>> ^blankfist:
I can't speak to Pheonix, but like I said funding alone isn't the issue. Personally I would like to see the police (and military) be drastically minimized. That would mean budget cuts, yes. That would mean police are laid off, yes. I'd like to see the police also have less authority.
I don't like seeing these videos of cops coming into people's homes and killing them and murdering their dogs. Will shrinking the police force eradicate that completely? No. But it certainly would mean less cases I'm sure.


We seem to be back at square one with this conversation then. I'll repeat what I said to begin with:
>> ^NetRunner:

Ahh, so your solution to cops behaving badly is to make them take paycuts and/or work longer hours.
Should work out awesome.


Why exactly would cops behave better if they were understaffed? I mean, my job isn't nearly as stressful as being a cop, and they've laid off so many people here that we're woefully understaffed, and it sure as hell hasn't improved my demeanor.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that belief in religious claims is completely and utterly irrational, not because there isnt sufficient evidence to meet a scientific standard, but because there is NO evidence at all. None. One of the many problems with accepting subjective experience in this context is the simple fact that we have several religions, and that some of their claims are directly in conflict. (Islam is pretty clear that anyone who believes Jesus is the son of God will end up in hell, and both of these religions are clear on what happens to any non-abrahamic believers etc.) If we were to take into account a mere 2 believers and their subjective experience with god, we'd be back to square one almost immediately. A bit like forever determining the best ice-cream flavor. Ironically, if there was a god who communicated with individuals , then subjective evidence would actually be interesting. However, since believers cant seem to agree on what god it is and what its saying, all we have is noise.

In other words we need some input, some kind of evidence that doesnt contradict itself or prove utterly unreliable, and here, anything would really be of interest. Bring it on. I'm waiting, and I'd be thrilled to see some, and I wont be picky. I promise.

I am perfectly aware that many scientists have religious convictions, but this fails to impact the truth of these claims. Scientists are humans, and humans are prone to superstition and being wrong. What we can say, however, is that the percentage of religious people drops dramatically among the educated. People like Francis Collins are clearly among the exceptions. And all I can say about his rationale for his rather evangelical beliefs is that they are laughably childish and silly.


In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Skepticism doesn't just require evidence for belief, it requires overwhelming evidence and hence any change will be slow (there are still scientists arguing against global warming).

Ironically, I think you could look at religious people as reverse-skeptics. Where a skeptic will not believe anything without overwhelming evidence to support it, a religious person will not change their belief in something without overwhelming evidence that the belief is wrong. And this, I suppose, is the main reason why skeptics and believers simply cannot agree with each other. There is not enough (I would say any, actually) reliable evidence (objective or subjective) to convince either side. How could there be? Most skeptics discount subjective knowledge (their own included) right from the start. Everyone is arguing over apples and oranges.

Accuracy is not as catchy, I guess.

>> ^HenningKO:
Well, times any non-zero, real, finite-decimal number you can find...
Doesn't even have to be a whole number.... it all comes back to nine.
Explain, sir!

>> ^Razor:
One of my favourite shows when I was little, especially the skits with the detectives =) Upvote! Oh, and Mathman!!!


Mathnet (Dragnet name). I watched it too.

Reporters are being killed in the conflict and part of the aim in these kinds of ethnic conflicts is to frighten the opposing ethnic group, so a sniper fucking with a reporter wouldn't necessarily be surprising. According to the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (wiki):

Four journalists were among hundreds killed in fighting between Russia and Georgia that began on 8 August 2008.

Cameraman Stan Storimans of Dutch television RTL-4 died and the station's Moscow correspondent was injured during Russian bombing of the Georgian town of Gori on 12 August, said Reporters Without Borders (RSF). Earlier in the day, RSF and the International News Safety Institute (INSI) reported that an unnamed Georgian reporter and his driver were killed when a shell hit their vehicle in Gori's main square.

One day earlier, Giga Chikhladze, head of Alania TV, and Alexander Klimchuk, head of the Caucasus Press Images agency and a correspondent for Itar-Tas, were killed in the breakaway republic of South Ossetia, apparently at a roadblock of pro-independence fighters.
Russian "Newsweek" reporter Orkhan Dzhemal said the journalists were attacked by South Ossetian militia after entering the conflict zone from Georgia, reported the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

Siege-town Gori has become a deadly 'sniper's alley' with citizens at the mercy of rampaging militiamen - believed to be from the breakaway republic South Ossetia - looting and firing guns, some drunkenly.

On Sunday video footage caught reporters from two Turkish stations ducking and saying their last prayers as they were fired upon by Russian snipers.

One of the journalists was hit in the eye but his injuries are reportedly not thought to be life-threatening.