@AnimalsForCrackers

First off, I’d like to thank you for your lengthy replies to my posts. I’m sure you, like me, are a busy person and have plenty of other things you could be doing.

Second, thanks again for the link. Read it and also clicked through some of the forums. It does indeed help me understand where you’re coming from. I can say that I disagree completely with the “Gnu Atheists” strategy (more on that later), but at least now I know what their strategy is and why they believe it is necessary.

Third, I’d like to give you a VideoSift user tip (just in case you’re unaware of it). On VideoSift, if you don’t use the quote function when replying to someone, the person you’re responding to won’t receive any notification that you’ve responded. If you’d rather directly quote by copying and pasting text for yourself (as you’ve been doing), you need to use @username (as I’ve done for your name in this post) in order for the person to get a notification you’ve responded. I bring this up because since you’ve neither been using the quote function nor using the @username tag, I haven’t been receiving any notification of your messages. I only found out about your response accidentally after I came back to check something after viewing this other Hitchens video. Just wanted to give you a heads-up about this because if someone doesn’t reply to a discussion you’ve been having, I wouldn’t want to you to assume, say, that the person was ignoring you.

Speaking of assumptions, I’m noticing that you tend to make a lot of them. You assumed, for instance, that I was a Christian. You assumed that I was trying to defend a particular religion or religious practice. You assumed (and continue to assume) that I am calling Hitchens and the rest fundamentalists. I am not. I could not. Atheism by its very definition cannot be “fundamentalist” as this article explains. What I said was:

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.

And I see now where the breakdown in communication between us occurred. I certainly could have been clearer here. You assumed I meant they were fundamentalists. What I meant was exactly what I said—exactly what the author of the blog that talked about Malcom X said: that they refuse to revise their absolutist statements about religion being the cause of evil or the spreading hatred even when faced with evidence of religion instead bringing good into the world (on the blog—the story of Hitchens and the taxi driver who went to great lengths to return Hitchens’ lost wallet because the driver’s religion demanded he do so).

This evidence exists in heaps and bounds—I would guess (though I don’t know for sure, granted) in equal amounts to the evidence that religion spreads hatred. Regardless of the amount, in the face of the fact that such evidence exists at all, Hitchens’ previous statement (the one made in this clip about religion being the primary cause of hatred) becomes wholly untenable. The best he can say is that religion might cause hatred in some people. And even then, the burden of proof is on him and the rest of the Gnu Atheists to show that it is religion itself and not, say, humans subverting religion for their own purposes as they do every other human constructed system. For instance, just because some people use communism to establish totalitarian regimes, doesn’t make communism evil. Likewise, people abusing capitalism and producing massive rich-poor gaps doesn’t make capitalism the source of evil. Religion is no different—it can be used for great good or great evil. These are systems—by themselves neither good, nor evil, but capable of both depending on how they are used and/or abused.

So, what I was trying to say in my original post is that it annoys me that Hitchens and the rest continue onward with their blanket absolutist statements despite the fact that there exists evidence to the contrary. That is similar to fundamentalists who say, for instance, that the world is only 6000 years old and ignore any scientific evidence to the contrary. I find it ironic to be able to see any similarity between two such diametrically opposed opponents. And, to me, it weakens the Gnu Atheists argument since they are so interested in “the truth”.

That pretty much summarizes my original opinion. I hope that is clear enough for you.

Now that that is out of the way, let me continue to address some of your other assumptions.
(I hope you pardon the length of this reply. I’ve read every word of yours and I hope you will do me the same courtesy.) You assumed that I didn’t know what ad hominem meant. Thanks for the link, but I’m actually not sure you know what it means so I’m actually going to post the definition here for both of us (from Wikipedia):

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

I feel this applies to your post because you appear to be dismissing my argument before even considering it since you start off suspecting I don’t think clearly. That, of course, would be a logical fallacy according to this definition. However, having browsed the website you sent me I understand why you use this tactic, as it is rampant on their forums--ironically proving the truth of your statement (when applied as a generality) that being an atheist does not necessarily mean being able to think clearly about all things.

This brings us back to the Gnu Atheist’s confrontational tactics—in that link you gave me, the writer explicitly endorses being rude. I’m not here to tell you it isn’t a valid tactic—it most certainly is. I’m here to question it’s efficacy.

Think of it this way: when you want to learn something there are many ways you can go about getting the knowledge you seek. You can ask someone who’s an expert on the topic. You can search the Internet. Or, you can put a book on your head and hope the information seeps into your head through some kind of information osmosis. Some of these techniques will clearly be more effective than others.

I think we can safely say that, when you are trying to convince someone of your opinion, some tactics work better than others. So, my question for you is, is being rude and disrespectful to people an effective arguing technique? Let’s be clear, I am not saying we need to respect other people’s ideas. As this article explains, we can make a distinction between respecting ideas and respecting people.

The fact of the matter is, in Western society we have standards of conduct. Civility is one of those standards. The failure to obey those standards results in the offender being ostracized. What that means is, when you disrespect people they are unlikely to listen to what you have to say. You can gnash your teeth and complain about this all you like, but it is “the truth.” And for someone who, as a Gnu Atheist, claims to be interested in the truth it seems irrational to ignore it and go about being rude to others if you really have any hope of convincing people of your position and aren't just talking for the sake of talking.

To tie all this together, let’s talk about one last assumption you made. You assumed I didn’t want to reply to your questions because I was trying to dodge the issue. I’d like us to be clear on my true reasons for not replying (so you won’t have to assume anymore).

I (like you, I imagine) happen to be a very busy person. I work full-time and put in a lot of unpaid overtime. I also have a beautiful family and good friends that I want to spend my free time with. This limits the amount of time I can spend on the Internet. So I have to choose when and how to respond to posts wisely.

You, from the very start of your post, set out to pick a fight. You made completely unfounded assumptions and then attacked an imaginary opponent that you mistook for me. In your attack, instead of remaining logical and rational, you resorted to personal attacks to try to make your points.

As I said, I have a limited amount of time. Why should I use that time to even bother with someone who doesn’t seem to understand the social convention of civility? Why should I spend it defending or searching the Internet for proof for an argument I never actually made (the “reality/validity” of Christianity; the fundamentalism of atheists like Hitchens)? Why should I try to reason with someone who from the very outset displays such misguided behavior?

The answer is, of course, I shouldn’t. But I did anyway. I’ve spent several hours on a Friday night composing this message with the sole hope that maybe you’d be willing to try to see things from my point of view rather than just attack line by line everything I say (because that’s not a discussion—it’s a monologue). I firmly believe it is dialogues—and not diatribes—that are going to solve the problems we currently face between secular and religious thinking. I respect your right to disagree, though, too. Like I said, I come to VideoSift to watch videos and occasionally comment on them—not convince the world I am right.

Thanks for reading this to the end. As a footnote, here is a link to a discussion on that web site you gave me that I found very interesting. Most of all, I found JoiletJake’s comments interesting—see posts #139 and #146 in particular, as I believe they are similar to my views on religion.

Living here now. In general, Japan is a great place to live... for a foreigner. Extremely low crime rates. Okay medical insurance (National Health Insurance here, which has both pros and cons).

It would suck hard to be native Japanese though. Everyone here is working crazy hours--my friend who manages a restaurant literally works 7 days a week, from opening at 2PM until well after midnight. Lots of people doing mandatory unpaid overtime because the economy has been tanked for over a decade now.

The government here is a frickin' mess. The corruption that goes on here is just mind-boggling. They're thinking of electing as Prime Minister a guy who just a couple a months ago was facing prosecution for millions of (US) dollars worth of tax evasion. His secretary took the fall for for it and he claimed he didn't know anything about it--uh huh.

Women's issues are behind Western standards, but it's changing for the better rapidly. My wife will get 6-months paid maternity leave when she gets pregnant and we'll get boat-loads of cash from the government to offset the cost of the OBGYN visits and hospitalization costs. The government has been offering coupons for free health exams for women for common issues like breast and uterine cancer. Women almost always get solitary custody of kids in a divorce and have the right to deny the father access to the kids.

Still, there's a way to go obviously as this video shows. We have a friend who's an 18-year old single mother. Pretty tough, but she's got extended family that help her through it. A lot of my university students come from single-mom families and they tell me about how hard their moms work to pay for their education (most of them are working part-time jobs to help pay for school too).

In Japan, it's all about your connections. Japanese society places a huge emphasis on your personal connections--friends, family, and extended family. I imagine that part of the problem of why very little is being done for these people (single mothers or otherwise) is that there is something of a stigma against people who don't have those connections... Maybe from the Japanese perspective they feel there must be something wrong with a person who can't rely on family to help them when the chips are down.

This place is so nice because it's built on slavery (unpaid labor) and the stolen labor of the developing world. Systems are connected, and you can only live like a king if you are standing on the backs of better men and women.

So.....which is more likely. Well paid corporate guy putting out statements to cover the company ass implying that anyone working for BP is allowed to speak to the media. AND/OR, Out of work water/dock-related workers desperate to keep a job being told by a "staffing" firm that hires for BP that if they speak they will be immediately fired and unemployable for the rest of their life?

I'd say it's exactly what I've said above. BP can "truthfully" say their workers can talk to anyone. Workers are kept silent because they are not employed by BP, they are employed by We Love BP Long Time Staffing Co.

Friend of mine when he was in high school was confused by mixed signals from GM back when he was in high school (mid-late 90s) concerning his job duties and what they needed from him for employment purposes. So he doesn't show up on specified day for something because he was told he needed certain paper work or a drug test administered..prior to this...whatever it was..he was told opposing things by the same department. So, he was fired and banned from employment with GM for life for the misunderstanding with no chance to explain or straighten it out. So if GM can do that, I think BP can keep you from talking to the press quite easily in a economically and environmentally devastated location during a world wide depression/recession.

It's not like the Congress is truly trying to "make them pay" for something they caused, and this video just smacks of that being carried over. Hey it's a rich company the US "NEEDS" in this recession from hell. And in good times it's Hey it's a rich company the US "NEEDS" because competition! or jobs! or it'll go overseas! or obviously they learned a valuable lesson and will be the best oil spill handlers till the end of time!

If an individual caused the damage to a coastline equivalent to what BP did in just one city/state...they'd probably already be charged and serving time by this point. And if it was a small corporation, every asset would be gone, all benefits and salaries of employees yet unpaid gone, and there would be a criminal investigation into each and every person who had hands in it. That's if someone didn't go batshit and kill the people for completely ruining their land and livelihoods for themselves that may taint the land long enough to prevent their grand children from taking up the trade.

http://www.urlesque.com/2010/05/27/interview-boob-slapping-wedding-dj-unpaid/ from http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Epic_Boob_Slapping_Wedding_DJ_Wasn_t_Fake_May_Now_Sue_vid ... "Turns out the now famous 'Worst Wedding DJ EVER!'--who played congo on a woman's boobs at a wedding--wasn't doing it as viral marketing. Guy was "real"; he's pissed off at person who taped/released video, didn't get paid for gig, & is now contemplating suing--and (of course!) considering other possible (money-making?) options..."

Personally speaking - if I had my druthers I would make voting in city, state, and national elections a lot more difficult. Sufferage is a priveledge. Too many voters are no more than bench-filling stooges of the political establishment. They gin up these large blocs of dummies and sucker them into voting for the same rats over and over again. An informed electorate of intelligent, competent, discriminating voters who focus on performance and accountability would not allow these dynasties. A good voting public produces churn. But party politics don't work when there is churn. It doesn't allow politicians to sit back and make a career out of politics. So politicians like these big blocs of bad voters. They keep the 'good voters' from taking away their power.

If I was king for a day, voting would go like this...

REQUIRED
1. Notarized photo ID card
2. Voter cannot have filed for bankruptcy (business or personal) in the past 5 years
3. Voter cannot have been convicted of a misdemeanor in the past 6 months or a felony in thier lifetime.
4. Voter must pass a mandatory class in United States civics (Federalist papers, enumerated powers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, checks & balances, etc...)
6. Voter must pass a class college level economics class (covers supply & demand, capitalism, debts/deficits, etc).
7. Parents with unpaid family obligations (deadbeat parents) cannot vote.

Citizens must additionally present any FOUR (or more) of the following...
1. Current, valid voter registration card
2. Proof of employment (at least 6 months)
3. Proof of residence (at least 1 year renting or owning in a specific location)
4. Social Security card
5. A credit rating of at least 650
6. Proof of having maintained a positive bank or savings account for at least 6 months
7. A valid birth certificate

I don't care if a person is a Democrat, or a Republican, or a one-eyed-one-horned-flying-purple-spaghetti-unicorn. They can vote however they want, but more should be required to vote than simply the ability to stumble through a door.

What difference does it make what questions Rush L. is asked? He's a celebrity/private citizen and his answers will be distorted and taken out of context by libmedia regardless. His answers weren't even featured in this vid (probably because they're too dangerously accurate for D. Komatose).

Speaking of softball questions, does Obama get any other kind? He's had no hard questions asked of him since assuming office; before then he had the mainstream media working (unpaid) on his election campaign so no hard questions then, either.

I have yet to hear a serious question asked nor answered about Afghanistan, taxocrats' roles in the banking and housing collapse, scamulus, crap-n-trade, high unemployment and now the socialized medicine bill. On top of that, we still don't know anything more about Obama himself, his college papers and other documents have been hidden from the public.

...Doesn't look at medical bankruptcy at all. It basically just looks at the per capita bankruptcy rate of Canada and the US, finds them similar, and declares Canada's program as being no help in general bankruptcy.

In every country on Earth there are thousands of bankruptcies. Other nations do not offically list 'medical expenses' in a legal docment as the cause of their bankruptcy because of nationalization. However, those charges (which still exist) are in the taxes that went to supporting aforementioned medical systems and contributed to the person's bankruptcy. Person "X" still had medical expenses and had to pay all his life. What Franken does is confine his definition to ONLY include persons who filed for chapter 7 or chapter 13 (a specific legal action) with medical expenses as a factor. Well, that 'factor' contributed to the bankruptcies of persons in Germany too - but didn't get listed in an official legal document. It's nothing but semantic humbuggery.

Fewer U.S. citizens are going bankrupt than Canada (proven). That probably extends to Germay, France & Switzerland as well, but maybe not. Regardless, it is sophistry to claim make propogandistic emotional pleas for 'no one should go medically bankrupt' and claim it doesn't happen in other countries. Bull. It happens all the time. It just isn't listed in the documents because it got smooshed into the tax code.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

It's exactly what Democrats said. You just don't like it. Cowboy up, pardner, and stop running away from what your guys are saying. Democrats have openly stated they are going to have no choice but to ration health care based solely on economic motivations. Their legislation is being crafted to relect that. By design, their plan will treat old people as nothing but expenses to be written off the books ASAP, and young people as cash-cows who get no treatment but have to pay taxes to support the program. Those are their words. This is medical care as envisioned by liberal democrats...

But that means you--particularly you young healthy people--you're going to have to pay more. "If you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and drugs for the last couple of years of your life. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die. I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market.

If someone is sick, gets free care, and then goes bankrupt, they didn't go bankrupt from medical costs.

There is no such thing as 'free' care'. This is a neolib myth that only exists in the realm of pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. Socialized medicine is - in fact - very very expensive for all citizens. As I stated above, just because their bankruptcy costs were hidden away as 'taxes' instead of defined as 'medical costs' going to a medical provider doesn't mean they didn't go medically bankrupt. It is legalese. It is buearucratic legerdemain.

The whole point of the health care reform is to attempt to address those issues.

No - the whole point of the Democrat vision of health care is so they can go to dinner parties and not have to get crap from other liberals about America not having a 'European' medical system. There are tons of better solutions than the specific policies of liberal democrats. They just don't want to try them. They don't even want to study them.

Its just immoral, unethical, and unwise. Winston, does not understand pain and suffering. Nor does he understand sacrifice. But, given my knowledge of life, I KNOW, he will have to face up to reality sooner or later in his life time. And then, he'll just be a hypocrit.

Standard neolib ad hominem bilge. I served as a volunteer unpaid missionary. I donate a large percentage of my personal income to charities. I volunteer in the community to help people get jobs, find work, and train. I visit the sick & widows in my community frequently. And just because I disagree with a top-down socialist so-called 'solution' to a problem I therefore don't understand sacrifice? All your words prove is that you don't know jack about me, and that you are a very small-minded, simplistic, judgemental buffoon.

UPDATE:

The trooper Daniel Martin ended up getting 5 days unpaid suspension for his role in the incident. Which, given the Good Old Boy system so prominent in Oklahoma, is probably about all you can expect. They should have taken the guy off patrols, but they didn't.

As a result, he's now under investigation for a second incident this year. Apparently, he beat a man with a nightstick for no reason. I wish I could say that I'm shocked they didn't put him on desk duty, but that's Oklahoma for you.

And seriously, Pennypacker, I've seen your posts elsewhere, and they are always lengthy and difficult to understand the point. And you actually try to drown out the person who was present at the recording, who appears to have valid/interesting information. You offer anecdotal evidence to counter other peoples anecdotal evidence, and then denounce the use of anecdotal evidence. I struggle to see the value in your arguments; it seems like you just prefer to be as contrary as possible, but emotionally neutral, which is really boring to read through.

As a born and raised Mormon, now atheist, I can say this is appears pretty accurate for a fast and testimony, and the whole point of the meeting (since the church's early days) is to allow the congregation their opportunity to be heard. There is a distinct desire in the church to have it appear 'democratic', when it's really just a token gesture ("All who approve say 'aye'" to confirm member positions; in my 15 years no dissenters). While it is uncommon to see someone comment politically, it's a perfectly valid platform for addressing his concerns to his fellow congregants. He was respectful and spoke of his personal feelings towards the actions of the church as an organization.

That said, the bishop for the congregation is 'elected' on a volunteer basis, and it's an unpaid position. The church documents on their responsibilities are pretty bland, and essentially are concerned chiefly with getting tithing and making sure the money is accounted for. It's entirely possible the bishop is just a douche and non-representative, but that really comes down to where you church is. Mormon churches in California are a whole different animal than churches in Utah, and I'm sure that's true elsewhere.

The best I can surmise it, the altruism and goodwill of church members as more to do with the local community and individuals than the actual church itself. The church only provides a venue and a general structure. My impression of the church after leaving was that it would be great if it wasn't for all the mystical Jesus/Joseph Smith nonsense. But alas, that's the one crazy thread that binds it all together.

No, what I mean by "tough on savers" is that savers will be forced to sell their gold for fiat money before paying taxes. That is, by using what I presume to be your definition of saving, which in reality is gold speculation.

I don't view debt as a monster. I view it as the engine of economic growth. Debt allows a business to grow, and offer more goods and services. Agreed, when we are hit with a confluence of unpaid debts, things come crashing down. The right response, is to cushion the fall, maintain price stability, and reallocate the money printed to cover the debts toward growth industry.

You got it nord, their whole approach was thuggish. I tried to raise the same kind of objection when I was in the county jail, is it the law that I need to be finger printed over unpaid registration ticket. Their responses were similarly brutish, "Doesn't matter son, you aren't getting out of here until you do". To a goody little to-shoes like myself, the fear and panic of a situation is used aggressively by officers to get you to comply with unlawful requests.

The liberal socialists have made policework a damned-either-way proposition. Imagine the outcry if the police chief had tackled the girl or pepper-sprayed her instead. It would be the same calculated hysteria, differently-worded.

Cops exist in part to deal with people with no social skills; there are going to be situations where it doesn't matter how much grace the cops have; they're still dealing with defiant scum who will ensure the encounter ends badly, either because they don't give a fk or because they reasoned if they look more like victims during an arrest they'll escape justice.

Running from a cop is a crime. The wrongful assumption here is that a cop can only use force when directly threatened, yet s/he is just as justified to use force to protect others, including the victim. The young lady running away could have just as easily ran out into traffic, killing herself or causing an accident which resulted in the deaths of others.

When a dumbass of any age, race, creed or color challenges a Taser, they are not only securing a place in youtube history, they are choosing to become unpaid subjects, testing the limits of the device itself. Needles, wires, sparks, flames, explosions, all the possible outcomes have just been given a receipt.

Internet Armchair Police always know the exact level of force each situation requires. I don't care for cops myself, but they are owed the benefit of the doubt and more respect than given here.

>> ^deedub81:
^Ha. Sorry. No can do. I DO think that some churches should be removed from their tax exempt status when they've got a wealthy CEO - I mean- preacher/paster/leader paying himself a ridiculous salary.
But, that wouldn't solve the problem. I don't think Gov. Schwarz has many options here. He's already taken other drastic measures up to this point (forced state employees to take unpaid leave) and now it's going to get difficult.
He has to take action NOW before the money disappears completely. Reforming the tax law isn't a feasible short-term solution.
The Government is not immune to this: http://www.videosift.com/video/SNL-Dont-Buy-Stuff-You-Cant-Afford

Being in construction, I feel the effects of the budget cuts on my end. I have from 8am to 11am to drive downtown and turn in permit applications. The city employees go home for the rest of the day. This has part to do with the economy in that with the slowdown of construction, they're seeing less income from permit fees. But a big part of the issue is a blanket budget cut cutting back the employee's hours. Also, pensions are being cut. A lot of employees are retiring because pretty soon the pension laws will be changing, affecting every city employee. Sh*t's a real big mess here. All you can really do his cross your fingers, bury your head, and keep on chuggin.

>> ^dotdude:
I'm starting the list from scratch in order to minimize "WIMP-OUTS." There were far TOO MANY over the months we regularly had roasts.
Like others of you here, I am an UNPAID volunteer.

Quit your whining and get back to work! *cracks whip*