i love you too

>> ^rottenseed:
de·lu·sion noun \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\
a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs>> ^shinyblurry:
lol. okay..lets consult the dictionary
–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power
often capitalized : almighty 1
2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence <an omnipotent ruler>
Does it say anything about doing logically impossible things? Such as disobeying an authority that He isn't under? It's the same thing with "creating a rock that He can't lift." It's a tautology. Give me a break..

de·lu·sion noun \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\

a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs>> ^shinyblurry:

lol. okay..lets consult the dictionary
–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power
often capitalized : almighty 1
2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence <an omnipotent ruler>
Does it say anything about doing logically impossible things? Such as disobeying an authority that He isn't under? It's the same thing with "creating a rock that He can't lift." It's a tautology. Give me a break..

lol. okay..lets consult the dictionary

–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power

often capitalized : almighty 1
2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence <an omnipotent ruler>

Does it say anything about doing logically impossible things? Such as disobeying an authority that He isn't under? It's the same thing with "creating a rock that He can't lift." It's a tautology. Give me a break..

>> ^ulysses1904:

Yeah his voice is obnoxious. And the editing and sound effects are the usual manipulative crap. The only thing missing is the mushroom cloud at the finale. Or was it there, I stopped watching before the end.


However, the message for the cars is completely true. I am not a wealthy person, so fluctuations in used car parts is a real pain for me...and it has been noticeable. Even moreso since many of the components I have needed of late have been engine related.
>> ^handmethekeysyou:

I almost upvoted this video after the beginning sequence.
But after the narrator's obnoxious tone, and then specifically the line, "but this government misallocation of money and resources always[emphasis mine] leads to unintended consequences," I stopped watching.
Always? Now there are a few ways of interpreting this sentences. First would be that when the government misallocates money and resources, there are unintended consequences. I won't disagree with that semantically, but if that's what he's saying, does it really need to be said? When the government screws up, it screws up. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.
A second interpretation is that government policy always misallocates money and resources & there are always, without fail, unintended consequences. Well, now I'll disagree semantically. Saying that all policy misallocates $$ & resources is ludicrous. If the video is going to talk about the fact that in all policy, there is always some money misused, that sounds interesting and is a worthwhile, constructive criticism. But something in those ominous clouds composited behind the Capitol Building tells me this isn't going to be an objective, in-depth look at government spending.
I suppose this video is 10 minutes of cherry-picked policies that the government screwed up. I'd love to watch and get worked up about it, but now I know it would just be anti-government propaganda.
...
I decided to watch some of it since maybe it was unfair to rail on it so hard after only a minute. Things that struck me:
- Use of Uncle Sam to suggest overbearing government propaganda. Video then proceeds to lay the propaganda on heavier than a North Korean campaign to get you to trim your hair. People in the streets, in photo negative! Capitol building with dollar signs coming out it, heading right for the lens, in photo negative! How about you composite some more shots over other shots to make this all seem so overwhelming? I think there was a full 5 seconds in there without a single hit or sting. I was bored and not emotionally outraged during those 5 seconds. Please reedit to fix.
- You're going to argue against "regulations" at large? All regulation is hurting me, the consumer, the citizen? [Regulating the amount of lead in my paint ultimately costs me more money, which means I can't provide as well for my children, who are currently eating paint chips.] Strange that he doesn't name a single specific regulation. Though it's actually nice. It saves me from having to think. Now I know, regulation=bad, and I don't need to worry my pretty little head about the whys and hows of it all.
- Nor does he explain the line "We have recently seen that sometimes it's the regulator that keeps bad businesses in business." Ok, sometimes that happens...like, when? Oh, I don't actually know any examples, just sometimes it happens. I can't wait to put on a smug expression of intellectual superiority after I wow the crowd at my next cocktail party when I pull this nugget out.
- During the regulation bit, he does relate that we're paying a "regulation tax" that's priced into my health insurance, shoes, clothing [shoes aren't clothing?], food, cars, homes, and pretty much anything I buy. I hate taxes! I buy at least 3 of those things! [So what?] So...I hate regulations! Which regulations do I hate again? [Not sure.] All of them! [Did I mention this is propaganda?]
I stopped after the regulations part [can you tell I didn't like that bit?]. I have no conclusive paragraph to sum everything up. This video is terrible and offensive.


There are many examples of bad companies staying in power because of using the power of law to enforce their agenda. For instance, the enjoyed legal monopoly of most telco and cable companies. Or, the higher prices Americans pay for sugar because of import tariffs on sugar. And thusly making corn sugar, its unhealthier cousin, the mainstay of American diets. Or, the corn subsidy that makes corn feeding beef more economical, even though it causes ecoli to then be produced by said cattle; this all benefits fast food industries to the defiant of us all. Or minimum wage, it necessarily raises unemployment by denying low skilled workers access to market priced labor; this protects high skilled labor from ever being found wanting for lower priced labor mainly benefiting large union positions, while relegating to perpetual unemployment/illegal employment a low skilled migrant worker.

But I admit, there needed to be more examples and less dogma in the video.

I almost upvoted this video after the beginning sequence.

But after the narrator's obnoxious tone, and then specifically the line, "but this government misallocation of money and resources always[emphasis mine] leads to unintended consequences," I stopped watching.

Always? Now there are a few ways of interpreting this sentences. First would be that when the government misallocates money and resources, there are unintended consequences. I won't disagree with that semantically, but if that's what he's saying, does it really need to be said? When the government screws up, it screws up. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.

A second interpretation is that government policy always misallocates money and resources & there are always, without fail, unintended consequences. Well, now I'll disagree semantically. Saying that all policy misallocates $$ & resources is ludicrous. If the video is going to talk about the fact that in all policy, there is always some money misused, that sounds interesting and is a worthwhile, constructive criticism. But something in those ominous clouds composited behind the Capitol Building tells me this isn't going to be an objective, in-depth look at government spending.

I suppose this video is 10 minutes of cherry-picked policies that the government screwed up. I'd love to watch and get worked up about it, but now I know it would just be anti-government propaganda.

...

I decided to watch some of it since maybe it was unfair to rail on it so hard after only a minute. Things that struck me:

- Use of Uncle Sam to suggest overbearing government propaganda. Video then proceeds to lay the propaganda on heavier than a North Korean campaign to get you to trim your hair. People in the streets, in photo negative! Capitol building with dollar signs coming out it, heading right for the lens, in photo negative! How about you composite some more shots over other shots to make this all seem so overwhelming? I think there was a full 5 seconds in there without a single hit or sting. I was bored and not emotionally outraged during those 5 seconds. Please reedit to fix.

- You're going to argue against "regulations" at large? All regulation is hurting me, the consumer, the citizen? [Regulating the amount of lead in my paint ultimately costs me more money, which means I can't provide as well for my children, who are currently eating paint chips.] Strange that he doesn't name a single specific regulation. Though it's actually nice. It saves me from having to think. Now I know, regulation=bad, and I don't need to worry my pretty little head about the whys and hows of it all.

- Nor does he explain the line "We have recently seen that sometimes it's the regulator that keeps bad businesses in business." Ok, sometimes that happens...like, when? Oh, I don't actually know any examples, just sometimes it happens. I can't wait to put on a smug expression of intellectual superiority after I wow the crowd at my next cocktail party when I pull this nugget out.

- During the regulation bit, he does relate that we're paying a "regulation tax" that's priced into my health insurance, shoes, clothing [shoes aren't clothing?], food, cars, homes, and pretty much anything I buy. I hate taxes! I buy at least 3 of those things! [So what?] So...I hate regulations! Which regulations do I hate again? [Not sure.] All of them! [Did I mention this is propaganda?]

I stopped after the regulations part [can you tell I didn't like that bit?]. I have no conclusive paragraph to sum everything up. This video is terrible and offensive.

I haven't watched the video yet, but GeeSussFreek's comment prompted me to reply. I don't want to sound mean, but most of GSF's comment is gobbledygook. Words like "experience" and "consciousness" need to be thrown out of the discussion unless you not only rigorously define them but also prove that they apply to humans. If you define them simply as "what human minds do" (which is what you have done in your talk of experiencing the color blue) then all you have is a tautology.

The problem with the man in the box thought experiment is as gwiz665 pointed out. First, you can't just assume such a translation book would be possible. If such a book did exist, if the book allowed for fluent conversation on arbitrary topics, then the man-plus-book system would indeed possess understanding of the language. Saying the man doesn't have understanding of the language is like dividing a brain into the amygdala, hypothalamus, etc and saying of any piece that it doesn't possess understanding of language--it's true but doesn't prove anything other than that intelligence isn't infinitely divisible into smaller pieces of the same. Just like water isn't infinitely divisible into smaller pieces of water, eventually you find the individual pieces are made out of some other kind of stuff.

A simple thought experiment shows that AI is not only possible, but with computers that process information the same as today's. The brain is made out of matter, which obeys the laws of quantum mechanics, which we can simulate on today's hardware. A computer that is sufficiently fast could simulate the fertilization of a human egg and its development into a full grown adult. Running the simulation in real time and providing it with the appropriate input signals(a pair of video cameras for vision, etc), the adult would be just as intelligent or self-aware as you or me. In fact, any words like "experience" or "consciousness" you use to talk about you or me would apply equally to our simulated person. By starting the simulation at the fertilization of the egg, it doesn't even require any knowledge about how the brain works. But, since it is unlikely that the brain directly relies on quantum phenomena, with sufficient knowledge of the cellular and chemical structure of the brain you could simulate it at that level instead and get the same results on hardware that is many orders of magnitude slower. The only way to refute this line of reasoning is to relegate the mind to some supernatural phenomenon, but at that point you're believing in magic and all bets on meaningful conversation are off.

Chapter 1 courtesy of the http://richarddawkins.net/article,4217,Extract-from-Chapter-One-of-The-Greatest-Show-on-Earth,Richard-Dawkins---Times-Online

Imagine that you are a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world — for the elegiacs of Ovid and the odes of Horace, the sinewy economy of Latin grammar as exhibited in the oratory of Cicero, the strategic niceties of the Punic Wars, the generalship of Julius Caesar and the voluptuous excesses of the later emperors. That’s a big undertaking and it takes time, concentration, dedication. Yet you find your precious time continually preyed upon, and your class’s attention distracted, by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami) who, with strong political and especially financial support, scurry about tirelessly attempting to persuade your unfortunate pupils that the Romans never existed. There never was a Roman Empire. The entire world came into existence only just beyond living memory. Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Romansh: all these languages and their constituent dialects sprang spontaneously and separately into being, and owe nothing to any predecessor such as Latin.

Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rearguard defence of the proposition that the Romans existed at all: a defence against an exhibition of ignorant prejudice that would make you weep if you weren’t too busy fighting it.

If my fantasy of the Latin teacher seems too wayward, here’s a more realistic example. Imagine you are a teacher of more recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers. Unlike my hypothetical Rome-deniers, Holocaustdeniers really exist. They are vocal, superficially plausible and adept at seeming learned. They are supported by the president of at least one currently powerful state, and they include at least one bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.

Fashionably relativist intellectuals chime in to insist that there is no absolute truth: whether the Holocaust happened is a matter of personal belief; all points of view are equally valid and should be equally “respected”.

The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central and guiding principle of biology; when they honestly place the living world in its historical context — which means evolution; when they explore and explain the very nature of life itself, they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened with loss of their jobs. At the very least their time is wasted at every turn. They are likely to receive menacing letters from parents and have to endure the sarcastic smirks and close-folded arms of brainwashed children. They are supplied with state-approved textbooks that have had the word “evolution” systematically expunged, or bowdlerized into “change over time”. Once, we were tempted to laugh this kind of thing off as a peculiarly American phenomenon. Teachers in Britain and Europe now face the same problems, partly because of American influence, but more significantly because of the growing Islamic presence in the classroom — abetted by the official commitment to “multiculturalism” and the terror of being thought racist.

It is frequently, and rightly, said that senior clergy and theologians have no problem with evolution and, in many cases, actively support scientists in this respect. This is often true, as I know from the agreeable experience of collaborating with the Bishop of Oxford, now Lord Harries, on two separate occasions. In 2004 we wrote a joint article in The Sunday Times whose concluding words were: “Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact and, from a Christian perspective, one of the greatest of God’s works.” The last sentence was written by Richard Harries, but we agreed about all the rest of our article. Two years previously, Bishop Harries and I had organised a joint letter to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

[In the letter, eminent scientists and churchmen, including seven bishops, expressed concern over the teaching of evolution and their alarm at it being posed as a “faith position”at the Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead.] Bishop Harries and I organised this letter in a hurry. As far as I remember, the signatories to the letter constituted 100 per cent of those we approached. There was no disagreement either from scientists or from bishops.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has no problem with evolution, nor does the Pope (give or take the odd wobble over the precise palaeontological juncture when the human soul was injected), nor do educated priests and professors of theology. The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an antireligious book. I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.

They may think God had a hand in starting the process off, and perhaps didn’t stay his hand in guiding its future progress. They probably think God cranked the Universe up in the first place, and solemnised its birth with a harmonious set of laws and physical constants calculated to fulfil some inscrutable purpose in which we were eventually to play a role.

But, grudgingly in some cases, happily in others, thoughtful and rational churchmen and women accept the evidence for evolution.

What we must not do is complacently assume that, because bishops and educated clergy accept evolution, so do their congregations. Alas there is ample evidence to the contrary from opinion polls. More than 40 per cent of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals, and think that we — and by implication all of life — were created by God within the last 10,000 years. The figure is not quite so high in Britain, but it is still worryingly large. And it should be as worrying to the churches as it is to scientists. This book is necessary. I shall be using the name “historydeniers” for those people who deny evolution: who believe the world’s age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years, and who believe humans walked with dinosaurs.

To repeat, they constitute more than 40 per cent of the American population. The equivalent figure is higher in some countries, lower in others, but 40 per cent is a good average and I shall from time to time refer to the history-deniers as the “40percenters”.

To return to the enlightened bishops and theologians, it would be nice if they’d put a bit more effort into combating the anti-scientific nonsense that they deplore. All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged, they will protest that they intended a purely “symbolic” meaning, perhaps something to do with “original sin”, or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously, nobody would be so foolish as to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that? How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? Is it really so easy for an uneducated churchgoer to guess? In all too many cases the answer is clearly no, and anybody could be forgiven for feeling confused.

Think about it, Bishop. Be careful, Vicar. You are playing with dynamite, fooling around with a misunderstanding that’s waiting to happen — one might even say almost bound to happen if not forestalled. Shouldn’t you take greater care, when speaking in public, to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay? Lest ye fall into condemnation, shouldn’t you be going out of your way to counter that already extremely widespread popular misunderstanding and lend active and enthusiastic support to scientists and science teachers? The history-deniers themselves are among those who I am trying to reach. But, perhaps more importantly, I aspire to arm those who are not history-deniers but know some — perhaps members of their own family or church — and find themselves inadequately prepared to argue the case.

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

Why, then, do we speak of “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, thereby, it seems, giving spurious comfort to those of a creationist persuasion — the history-deniers, the 40-percenters — who think the word “theory” is a concession, handing them some kind of gift or victory? Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.

Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.

Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town,* some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.

We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past.

The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.

Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.

*Not my favourite Yeats line, but apt in this case.

© Richard Dawkins 2009

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^Ornthoron:
I'm saddened by the fact that there is a need for overly simplified videos like this one.

he last point, i think, is the hardest to get, I have read books by scientists who don't seem to really grasp the non-directional nature of evolution. Deep inside, the idea that it is somehow directed towards making us, humans, seem ingrained in most people's mind, phrases like "more evolved" "higher up on the evolutionary tree" etc are often wildly misplaced and over-used.

I think a large portion of those scientists subscribe to what I call the anthropic fallacy. They use the anthropic principle to argue backwards that humans are a teleological certainty. It's a subtle logical fallacy. Normally, you would say:
1. If humans are to exist, the laws of the universe need to be such and such.
2. Humans exist.
3. Therefore, the laws of the universe are such and such.

Of course, it's tautological and doesn't say much. So, many are tempted to extrapolate and some come to the strong anthropic principle, which says too much and is indeterminable, or they try to be smart and say things like this:
1. If humans are to exist, the laws of the universe need to be such and such.
2. The laws of the universe are such and such.
3. Therefore, humans are to exist (i.e. they must exist at some time in this universe).

This looks logically true if you use material implication, but it is in fact false when using the semantically correct counterfactual conditional. That the laws of a universe are indeed such and such as to allow humans does not implicate that humans exist in that universe, just that they can exist. So as you said, evolution does the rest. Evolution may be random or not, but we won't settle that with pure logic. Any determinist or materialist should put is money on "not random" though of course not random does in no way imply design or anything of that sort.

There's some good stuff in this video. There's also some truly laughable items.

My following comments are chronologically ordered with the video. They are not all meant to be examples of "laughable items".

1) He uses the first two anecdotes he mentions in exactly the same way in which he says the characters in those anecdotes used their own. In other words, he comes to a conclusion of the characters' behavior based upon supposition derived from a single experience, not upon statistically significant data.

2) The second optical illusion (moving petals) is completely static for me. I'm red-green colorblind, and I wonder if that's why?

3) "Skeptics don't state as fact that paranormal phenomena don't exist," "No paranormal claim has ever been validated by independent means."
Tautological much? Of course no paranormal claim has ever been validated, because as soon as it has been, it is no longer considered paranormal!

4) When the sunbather that has not contracted melanoma claims that sunbathing can do you no harm, he or she is correct in a certain sense. It apparently cannot do them any harm. This is where anecdotal evidence is in fact useful. If I find that I have an uncanny ability to avoid breaking my bones when I fall, then it is logical for me to conclude that the next time I fall, I won't break any bones. Obviously I can't apply that to anyone else, because it is dependent upon my own physiology, kinesthetics, athletic ability, etc. I'm happy to finally find a video like this that at least acknowledges the flip side of the coin.



I'm not entirely sure this belongs in the 'brain' channel. It is a description, not an explanation, of human behavior. If the 'Mind and Brain' channel is to have any coherence, I feel I must demand that explanation. Otherwise, any video with a description of human behavior would valid for inclusion. The end result is that any video showing human behavior (nearly every non-lolcat video on the sift) is then qualified for inclusion. I'm going to leave it for now and revisit again in a couple of days.

>> ^dag:
That kind of tautology is not good enough for me. Bring on the fucking robot overlords because I'm losing my faith in collective humanity. I think the purposely set bush fires here is Australia are on my mind too. Different magnitude, same human dysfunction.

Collective humanity has always been a failure when it came to treating your fellow human beings in any decent way. But it is getting better slowly, at least nowadays you don't often get killed getting from one city to another.

The anonymous nature of the internet brings out the best and worst in people.

>> ^dag:
That kind of tautology is not good enough for me. Bring on the fucking robot overlords because I'm losing my faith in collective humanity. I think the purposely set bush fires here is Australia are on my mind too. Different magnitude, same human dysfunction.
>> ^Farhad2000:
>> ^dag:
Why do humans need to fuck things up, kick over sand castles - etc?
Because we are humans.




It is sad the actions of few will sometimes end up in a catastrophy.. Most people I meet, just in my pathetic barista job are nice, friendly kind. And there are always some who just don't get it..

Some who think THEY are special, or at leats that they'd need special treatment. Who need attention... who bring their drink back 5 times, just because they changed their mind. Not because we made it wrong. But just because they know we'd make it over if they came back and complained. It is not the general human nature.. Something has gone wrong, and they just have to get attention, or lash out, or something..

Lashing out is not the way to do it though! I am sorry, but if you prove to be that volatile and untrustworthy, maybe because 'this is only an online thingy'.. NO! Go away, stay away! I will not trust you to be back! You have issues, well, so do I, and most people. We just don't go around and wreak havoc, or whatever the correct english might be.

Just ban him. Ban him and we never have to worry about HIM any more. God forbid, we might have otrher people with issues.

But just keep in mind: This is not the way to do it. This might be an online community, but we are real people, and we don't want to get hurt! You might not know anybody personally, but you are hurting REAL people with stupid, childish actions.

Maybe you think we are childish to care about something silly like queued videos and subsciptions.. But we do, just like you cared whether you were liked or not.. And believe me, you would have bene liked, like any normal person has you just been NICE!

WHAT IS SO HARD ABOUT BEING NICE??

End of rant for now.. I need sleep, and yes, I did get a drink, or two.. Not that I am feeling that much better.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That kind of tautology is not good enough for me. Bring on the fucking robot overlords because I'm losing my faith in collective humanity. I think the purposely set bush fires here is Australia are on my mind too. Different magnitude, same human dysfunction.

>> ^Farhad2000:
>> ^dag:
Why do humans need to fuck things up, kick over sand castles - etc?
Because we are humans.

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^burdturgler:
>> ^stephenfryftw:
^ have you always been in the habit of making laughably fatuous, mawkish, tautologically nonsensical arguments, or is this a new hobby?

You've contributed nothing to this site since you puked into existence here, and nothing to this conversation. So, thanks for nothing. Congratulations on finding thesaurus.com . Your meaningless, worthless bullshit is hereafter ignored.

Not exactly sure why you're taking this video so personally unless you are a member of CADL...
It seems aimed at them specifically, not Christianity in general.


It should be obvious that my quote there was in response to stephenfryftw's idiotic comment, not to the video.

>> ^burdturgler:
>> ^stephenfryftw:
^ have you always been in the habit of making laughably fatuous, mawkish, tautologically nonsensical arguments, or is this a new hobby?

You've contributed nothing to this site since you puked into existence here, and nothing to this conversation. So, thanks for nothing. Congratulations on finding thesaurus.com . Your meaningless, worthless bullshit is hereafter ignored.


Not exactly sure why you're taking this video so personally unless you are a member of CADL...

It seems aimed at them specifically, not Christianity in general.

>> ^stephenfryftw:
^ have you always been in the habit of making laughably fatuous, mawkish, tautologically nonsensical arguments, or is this a new hobby?

You've contributed nothing to this site since you puked into existence here, and nothing to this conversation. So, thanks for nothing. Congratulations on finding thesaurus.com . Your meaningless, worthless bullshit is hereafter ignored.