I thought the audio worked quite well as a soundtrack to the terrific B movie footage, although I'm also not quite sure how well it would stand alone... I might not have upvoted it as an audiosift myself (mood depending).
>> ^PlayhousePals:

Can't say I'm enamored with the uh, "music" ... but there is some terrific B movie footage here =o)

*length=4:02 Cant say I'm enamored with the uh, "music" ... but there is some terrific B movie footage here =o)

@Rambaldi -- so.... they say it isn't live and then present the interview. So there was bombardment during the interview.

I don't see that this is "not even-handed". The guy was bombed while he was being interviewed. Isn't that true? How is that not just factual?

Does that fact help draw eyes to the interview? Sure. Sex and violence sells. At least in America. And the news is for sale here.


I thought it was admirable that they attempted to get someone from each side to say what it is like to feel terrified for your life. There are victims on both sides, and aggressors on both sides. I thought this was terrific for pointing that out.

If you are a person of faith, and see God's hand in all things, the timing of the bombs might give you pause.

Or it is just an unfortunate coincidence.

Terrific post, thank you, it should be required viewing in all schools. The last comment - Steven Weinberg - is the way forward; "science IS corrosive to religious belief, and, it's a good thing too." We have a duty to insist that our children are well informed. That they doubt, and question, tenets, rather than just simply accepting them as "gospel." I forget who said; " An intelligent man has no need of religion."

It's been a while since I watched it but I think he lost me at a bit where he concludes that there is no point, therefore the premise of living life as an atheist is false. My own response to this is that there does not need to be a point and, due to the sequential nature of his reasoning, everything that comes after this is flawed because of the false dichotomy. (I was reading the wikipedia list of logical fallacies last week )

>> ^shinyblurry:

Glad that you can see that..you might be the first. What do you specifically disagree on with the first video?
>> ^lampishthing:
Yeah, I don't agree with the first video but, if you take it as a given, what he says here makes sense.>> ^shinyblurry:
In context, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He started off by saying that you have to surrender freedom to the truth to get the deeper and richer freedom. Do you understand what he meant by that? For instance, let's say you decided to be an anarchist and did whatever you wanted instead of following the rule of law. Technically, you are exercising a lot more freedom as an anarchist. You are making your own rules, essentially. However, the truth is that you would actually be much less free, because once you gave up following the rules, you would no longer be accepted in the society. So, although you may be more free when you can do whatever you want, you give up that individual freedom to participate in the society, and that gives you a deeper and richer freedom. Truth can both destroy and liberate freedom. What matters is what we were designed for, what truth we have to surrender to to actually be free, which is what the video is talking about.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
holy shit.
"It is true.. that claiming to have the truth is a terrific way to destroy freedom.
And yet, there is a truth that we've gotta have to be free" ?!?!?!
You know what cognitive dissonance is.. right, shiny?

Glad that you can see that..you might be the first. What do you specifically disagree on with the first video?

>> ^lampishthing:

Yeah, I don't agree with the first video but, if you take it as a given, what he says here makes sense.>> ^shinyblurry:
In context, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He started off by saying that you have to surrender freedom to the truth to get the deeper and richer freedom. Do you understand what he meant by that? For instance, let's say you decided to be an anarchist and did whatever you wanted instead of following the rule of law. Technically, you are exercising a lot more freedom as an anarchist. You are making your own rules, essentially. However, the truth is that you would actually be much less free, because once you gave up following the rules, you would no longer be accepted in the society. So, although you may be more free when you can do whatever you want, you give up that individual freedom to participate in the society, and that gives you a deeper and richer freedom. Truth can both destroy and liberate freedom. What matters is what we were designed for, what truth we have to surrender to to actually be free, which is what the video is talking about.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
holy shit.
"It is true.. that claiming to have the truth is a terrific way to destroy freedom.
And yet, there is a truth that we've gotta have to be free" ?!?!?!
You know what cognitive dissonance is.. right, shiny?

>> ^zor:

What is that a yugo push starting it? Rock bottom.
That'd be a terrific punch-line, but because of the sidelamps I'm inclined to believe it's a Fiat 127 (which did serve as the basis for the Yugo).

Yeah, I don't agree with the first video but, if you take it as a given, what he says here makes sense.>> ^shinyblurry:

In context, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He started off by saying that you have to surrender freedom to the truth to get the deeper and richer freedom. Do you understand what he meant by that? For instance, let's say you decided to be an anarchist and did whatever you wanted instead of following the rule of law. Technically, you are exercising a lot more freedom as an anarchist. You are making your own rules, essentially. However, the truth is that you would actually be much less free, because once you gave up following the rules, you would no longer be accepted in the society. So, although you may be more free when you can do whatever you want, you give up that individual freedom to participate in the society, and that gives you a deeper and richer freedom. Truth can both destroy and liberate freedom. What matters is what we were designed for, what truth we have to surrender to to actually be free, which is what the video is talking about.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
holy shit.
"It is true.. that claiming to have the truth is a terrific way to destroy freedom.
And yet, there is a truth that we've gotta have to be free" ?!?!?!
You know what cognitive dissonance is.. right, shiny?

They should've gone all the way and edited in a cgi shark for the rubber one. Yes, I know, SACRILEGE, but It was the only flaw in a terrific movie.

I think the london olympics has had some terrific camera work!

He was terrific in Spinal Tap. Same dead pan humour.

If you haven't seen this film, what a treat you're in for. Loved it all. Evert aspect of it is terrific. Casting, script, direction, all come together perfectly. It's a film you simply don't want to end, which, let's face it, is pretty rare these days. Enjoy.

Terrific!

Batshitcrazy psychobabble.

So if a female Muslim decided to be an American Capitalist instead of following the strict and oppressive lifestyle of Islamic society..

In actuality, is she less free?

Sure she's free do whatever she wants: dress the way she likes, socialize with males, choose her own husband, not be subject to abuse and honor-punishments.

But is she truly free? considering that she will no longer be accepted by and free to engage in Islamic society?!

See what i mean?.. psychobabble

>> ^shinyblurry:

In context, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He started off by saying that you have to surrender freedom to the truth to get the deeper and richer freedom. Do you understand what he meant by that? For instance, let's say you decided to be an anarchist and did whatever you wanted instead of following the rule of law. Technically, you are exercising a lot more freedom as an anarchist. You are making your own rules, essentially. However, the truth is that you would actually be much less free, because once you gave up following the rules, you would no longer be accepted in the society. So, although you may be more free when you can do whatever you want, you give up that individual freedom to participate in the society, and that gives you a deeper and richer freedom. Truth can both destroy and liberate freedom. What matters is what we were designed for, what truth we have to surrender to to actually be free, which is what the video is talking about.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
holy shit.
"It is true.. that claiming to have the truth is a terrific way to destroy freedom.
And yet, there is a truth that we've gotta have to be free" ?!?!?!
You know what cognitive dissonance is.. right, shiny?

@spoco
the "official" government theory on what happened is also a conspiracy theory.
and there are always political underpinnings on where blame is placed, and how.

I mean, it's a wonderful theory that a guy in the remote stretches of Afghanistan trained and coordinated a bunch of Saudis conducting an URBAN airport operation. he must have had terrific cel service at the batcave.
it's a dumb theory, but still a theory.

and i'm quite sure invading Afghanistan had nothing to do with the largest amount of untapped rare earth minerals anywhere in the world. what a lucky coincidence!
and given that a modern empire needs to have 2 essential things to maintain it's empire - energy and technology, there is absolutely NO WAY we are in Afghanistan for anything but killing that dude, women's rights, feeding the orphans, and keeping us snuggly safe and secure.