I would say diplomacy as a solution to Islamic jihadism is as naive as was diplomacy with the nazis. Pakistan's current rule of law is the death penalty for blaspheming the name of the prophet, and not only is that too secular for the taliban jihadists, it is so intolerably so that they are waging a war against civilians over it. The proudly claim credit for shooting children on school buses, and proudly note their intent to finish Malala off if given the chance. What kind of diplomacy do you expect to see followed exactly?

Should Pakistan's military and police really refuse to meet the countless taliban attacks on civilian targets with no use of force? Should they really just proceed to try and talk to the criminals prosecuting these crimes every single week? I think it's a strategy doomed to horrific failure, and one that invariably leads to far more death and suffering.

History doesn't exactly bare out that ignoring dictators and extremists leads to them just giving up and playing nice. Brutality was terribly successful and effective for the Pharoahs. Same for the Caesars. Same for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il and on and on and on. There comes a point when failure to face evil with force just emboldens and strengthens it.

Christ you sound like a crazy boring person. Just give up then idiot, leave the planet for people who fucking care.

I assume it's exactly the fact that such a "special" relationship with politicians and regulators exists that's the problem and moreover that these are exactly the sort of thing market controls are needed to prevent (even if the existing ones have largely been co-opted to serve the Plutocrats).

If you want to define "free-market"as completely free and unregulated then yes this is not a free market, however what regulation we do have is by this stage so ineffectual and corrupt that basically all the problems with a true "free-market" have already very much manifested.
That said I think I'm actually agreeing with you here, we might even say we have the worst of both worlds where the colossally rich have the market "freedom" do do what they like but can also co-opt socialist regulation to both defend themselves and aggressively suppress and exploit potential threats from the lower end of the economy.

The argument I guess is because SevenFingers is using the term "free-market" in a much more pejorative sense here than yourself. To him I'm guessing it simply means largely unopposed Plutocracy i.e. the misused existing regulation etc. is a product of an unregulated market running amok and corrupting every institution it can get its hands on.

If this is indeed the case then you only have a problem with incompatible semantics (meaning is use).
The real argument you guy's should be having is whether moving towards a Randian "true free-market" would make this situation any better or worse. Personally I can't see how this would make things anything other than worse for the vast majority of us.
In my head a true free market would basically be akin to just giving up and putting Weyland Yutani in charge, because sooner or later that's what you'd get. Atlas Shrugged made me sick to my stomach!

I propose the solution lies in replacing our existing systems of government and regulation with something both stronger and more importantly 100% transparent. In the age of the internet we could make political corruption virtually impossible and the old capitalist vs collectivist paradigm is becoming old, tired & increasingly irrelevant.

Time for a higher synthesis and a new dialectic cycle.
The thesis was anarcho-capitalism,
The antithesis was Totalitarian socialism
The synthesis is Meritocratic socio-capitalism!

(M) for the Movement
(M) for Meritocracy
(M) for Mindlessly repeated slogans!

That's (part) of why I use Firefox with Adblock, Noscript, default block cookies (whitelist when necessary), and even ran that one that lists all the external domains that a page is trying to scuttle off to with allow/disallow for a while. Eventually I got sick of having to allow 10 new domains every time I visited a new page for the first time (or see a video from a new host here on the sift), which was causing me to just give up and load in Chrome rather than stick with it. So now I'm back to just that first set.

However, the thought of somebody running a honeypot operation and generating dummy data for advertisers (or the NSA) to mine makes me cackle with delight....

@dag - What I like best about your comment is that you present constructive criticism, while the rest of the media, government and public are preparing the tar and feathers.

I'm frustrated by the way we focus on personality and ignore the systemic nature of these kinds of issues. Once we tar and feather Obama, the next president will find herself/himself in need of effective national security measures and will likely go along with whatever the NSA thinks is best. Hillary is Stalin! Rand Paul is Hitler! Rinse and repeat. This is part of the reason why nothing ever seems to get done.

As an aside, I've certainly been on the offensive side of these crusades with Bush, McCain, Hillary and Romney, so this newish perspective is something of an epiphany. Not to say I didn't voice legitimate gripes, but I took cheap shots aplenty.

In short, I'm probably feeling what the rest of the world has long known, that Americans are immature, aggressive and completely unproductive in the way we manage their civic affairs, and it's not going to stop till we wise up.

(So just give up)


Anyway.....

Hilarious that Piers just gives up and lets him go into full on tinfoil hat mode, feeding him just enough to allow Jones to look even more deranged.

This isn't really a bug, but if any other users are running "lockdown-mode" Firefox like me (AdBlock Plus, Element Hiding Helper, NoScript, Cookie Monster, *and* RequestPolicy) and you don't see the comments section on any video pages, try allowing googleapis.com in both NoScript and RequestPolicy.

Old version of the page would load comments just fine with googleapis.com blocked in RequestPolicy, but it disappeared for me after the update until I made that change.

That combination of plugins for Firefox is a great way to have a whole lot of control over how much extra cruft a page can serve up to you, but I must admit it makes any first visit to a new site or domain a real bitch. Sometimes I just give up and fire up Chrome.

Wow. I'm not here to argue whether or not evolution is true or not; thought I was clear about that. You're welcome to it over at talkorigins.org I, for one, don't think evolution is falsifiable since it isn't reproducible. I didn't say it didn't happen. Just that it isn't falsifiable. I can find evolutionists who both disagree with me and agree with me. It's just my position. Since the scientific method requires experimentation to prove the theory, well, I think there is a problem there. You don't. OK. I'm good with that. >> ^PalmliX:

You can't apply the scientific method to evolution!?!? How exactly do you think the theory has come to exist? Without the scientific method there would be no theory of evoloution.
Of course the scientific method is in the hands of imperfect human beings, we created it, who else's hands would it be in? Yes humans are imperfect and that can sometimes lead to bad science, but the answer to bad science isn't no science, it's more science.
Should we just give up on science all together because humans aren't perfect? How else do you suggest we separate fact from fantasy? Truth from fiction? I really find your philosophy troubling because it seems to suggest that since we can't know everything, right away, perfectly, that we might as well not try?
Also I really don't care about some inane argument Dawkins made that has now been refuted. As I've said before, he's just one man and at the end of the day his opinions really don't matter, his thoughts on evolution in no way change the facts of evolution or the validity of the scientific method in general.
It's a silly semantic game that you play when you say 'I didn't hear Keller say there is or isn't a god, or evolution is bunk' etc... Yes he didn't use those exact words but the larger issue at hand is the same and you know it!
Finally, evolution isn't falsifiable? I stopped taking science after grade 10 and I can already think of a couple ways evolution could be falsified. For example, if we found an organism that couldn't have been formed from the evolutionary process, or if we found the fossil of an animal that existed in a time that would have been impossible by evolutionary predictions. I'm sure biologists have come up with a lot more.
>> ^silvercord:
In this clip I don't hear Keller say there is or isn't a God. I don't hear him say that evolution is bunk or not. I hear him saying that Dawkins argument is spurious for several reasons.
As I understand it, the scientific method requires that something must be falsifiable; evolution is not. I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen, just that you can't apply the scientific method to it. Also, the scientific method is always in the hands of humans. That is the fly in the ointment. Humans are hugely fallible. The method may be perfect, but the handlers aren't.
I think it would be beneficial to watch the entire talk so that Keller isn't being made the problem for pointing out the problem. There is a problem and it isn't Keller or me. It isn't you either. It's the fallibility of humans not being taken into account in this equation.

You can't apply the scientific method to evolution!?!? How exactly do you think the theory has come to exist? Without the scientific method there would be no theory of evoloution.

Of course the scientific method is in the hands of imperfect human beings, we created it, who else's hands would it be in? Yes humans are imperfect and that can sometimes lead to bad science, but the answer to bad science isn't no science, it's more science.

Should we just give up on science all together because humans aren't perfect? How else do you suggest we separate fact from fantasy? Truth from fiction? I really find your philosophy troubling because it seems to suggest that since we can't know everything, right away, perfectly, that we might as well not try?

Also I really don't care about some inane argument Dawkins made that has now been refuted. As I've said before, he's just one man and at the end of the day his opinions really don't matter, his thoughts on evolution in no way change the facts of evolution or the validity of the scientific method in general.

It's a silly semantic game that you play when you say 'I didn't hear Keller say there is or isn't a god, or evolution is bunk' etc... Yes he didn't use those exact words but the larger issue at hand is the same and you know it!

Finally, evolution isn't falsifiable? I stopped taking science after grade 10 and I can already think of a couple ways evolution could be falsified. For example, if we found an organism that couldn't have been formed from the evolutionary process, or if we found the fossil of an animal that existed in a time that would have been impossible by evolutionary predictions. I'm sure biologists have come up with a lot more.

>> ^silvercord:

In this clip I don't hear Keller say there is or isn't a God. I don't hear him say that evolution is bunk or not. I hear him saying that Dawkins argument is spurious for several reasons.
As I understand it, the scientific method requires that something must be falsifiable; evolution is not. I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen, just that you can't apply the scientific method to it. Also, the scientific method is always in the hands of humans. That is the fly in the ointment. Humans are hugely fallible. The method may be perfect, but the handlers aren't.
I think it would be beneficial to watch the entire talk so that Keller isn't being made the problem for pointing out the problem. There is a problem and it isn't Keller or me. It isn't you either. It's the fallibility of humans not being taken into account in this equation.

Look at it this way woman. I blame you for rape. If a woman would give her boyfriend/husband sex when he wants it and oh make it good sex which includes anal, blow jobs that you can deep throat and swallow, threesomes with another female or anything he wants....The man would not look elsewhere and be forces to rape another woman to get what he wants. So just give up your body to your man and save another woman from being raped. Another way to solve this issue is to allow brothels here in America. (whore houses) The United States is the only country that does not allow this and we have the highest rate for rapes. If a person has a another way of getting sex especially if his partner don't put out then there would be no need to rape a woman. I've been married 30 years and never had to look elsewhere because my wife always has pleased me in any way I wish. End of story.

>> ^spoco2:
I'm amazed that @shinyblurry can, with a straight face, (well, I assume he's not sniggering) suggest that it's inconceivable that while we've seen that when matter and anti-matter come together they cancel each other out and form 'nothing' the reverse cannot possibly happen.


Directing you to a general reply, here:

http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss-Something-from-Nothing?loadcomm=1#comment-1443305

>> ^spoco2:
And yet God 'just is'. You cannot fathom that something that we HAVE OBSERVED would seem to logically go the other way also, and yet are happy to accept a notion of an omnipotent bearded man existing for all eternity.... so just giving up on the concept of time and saying 'he just was, and is'.


No one has given up on the concept of time. The evidence indicates that time had an absolute beginning:

http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/stephen70/talks/swh70_vilenkin.pdf

If time had an absolute beginning, that means that whatever created the Universe is timeless (as well as spaceless, powerful, immaterial and transcendent). Meaning, the evidence points to an eternal first cause of the Universe. That is already matching up to a description of God and His attributes. Also, God is not a bearded man; you came to that conclusion because of religous imagery, not what scripture says. What scripture says is that God is a spirit.

>> ^spoco2:
I don't get how you think you have any point of argument. Sure, I can completely get that people can conceive that there is some higher power, that's fine. But to think there's any infinitesimally small shred of logic or reason contained in that belief that is any more reasoned than what science is coming up with is baffling.


I'm glad to hear that you can allow for belief in a higher power. Though, it doesn't sound like you are very familiar with the logical arguments for the existence of God. The kalam cosmological argument, for example, establishes an eternal, personal, transcendent first cause of the Universe.

>> ^spoco2:
You believe that, you also think it's your mission to convert others, but you know what? Trying to argue it out, thinking that you have some logical gotcha is just futile. You know the best way to bring people to your way of thinking? Be compassionate, lead by example, do good works, help others. DO NOT PREACH. Seriously, some of the nicest people I know actually have their own church, they run it, they created it. But they DO NOT preach AT ALL to us, they don't try to convert us at all. But they are helpful, kind, caring people who are wonderful to be around, and when they bow their heads and pray and make speeches thanking their lord during their birthday parties and other celebrations it doesn't grate, because it's not done in any way that's trying to rope in us unbelievers.


I agree with you, that a Christian should do good works. That is the fruit of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. However, Christians are also commanded by Jesus to preach the gospel. We are supposed to do both, not one or the other. There are specific, spiritual reasons for why this is so. Your friends sounds like excellent Christians, however, if you were to die tomorrow, and they had never told you the gospel, they will answer for that at the judgment seat of Jesus Christ. Christianity does not come by osmosis; faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

>> ^spoco2:
Please take that as a way to spread your word, Do Good Deeds. We like to watch videos like this because it's two people discussing some really deep questions and we like to know what scientists think about these things that are in their field of expertise. I would just as much like to watch a discussion between theologians about morality and differing religions and how they think their teachings fit in there. As long as it wasn't a case of 'if you don't believe in me you are doomed to hell', just 'I believe that following these commandments will lead to a better life', or 'I don't take the story of Noah to be a factual account, but more a parable with a lesson'.


There is a difference between having a debate, and telling someone the gospel. However, why would you expect someone to compromise, or water down what they believe? You've felt very comfortable in telling me exactly what you believe, and what I should be doing, and how I should be doing it, yet I must censor myself for the sake of your sensitive ears? Do you think I am going to obey God, or man?

I'm amazed that @shinyblurry can, with a straight face, (well, I assume he's not sniggering) suggest that it's inconceivable that while we've seen that when matter and anti-matter come together they cancel each other out and form 'nothing' the reverse cannot possibly happen. And yet God 'just is'. You cannot fathom that something that we HAVE OBSERVED would seem to logically go the other way also, and yet are happy to accept a notion of an omnipotent bearded man existing for all eternity.... so just giving up on the concept of time and saying 'he just was, and is'.

I don't get how you think you have any point of argument. Sure, I can completely get that people can conceive that there is some higher power, that's fine. But to think there's any infinitesimally small shred of logic or reason contained in that belief that is any more reasoned than what science is coming up with is baffling.

You believe that, you also think it's your mission to convert others, but you know what? Trying to argue it out, thinking that you have some logical gotcha is just futile. You know the best way to bring people to your way of thinking? Be compassionate, lead by example, do good works, help others. DO NOT PREACH. Seriously, some of the nicest people I know actually have their own church, they run it, they created it. But they DO NOT preach AT ALL to us, they don't try to convert us at all. But they are helpful, kind, caring people who are wonderful to be around, and when they bow their heads and pray and make speeches thanking their lord during their birthday parties and other celebrations it doesn't grate, because it's not done in any way that's trying to rope in us unbelievers.

Please take that as a way to spread your word, Do Good Deeds. We like to watch videos like this because it's two people discussing some really deep questions and we like to know what scientists think about these things that are in their field of expertise. I would just as much like to watch a discussion between theologians about morality and differing religions and how they think their teachings fit in there. As long as it wasn't a case of 'if you don't believe in me you are doomed to hell', just 'I believe that following these commandments will lead to a better life', or 'I don't take the story of Noah to be a factual account, but more a parable with a lesson'.

@renatojj

Very nice. You can't come up with a decent argument so you just give up and pretend it's because of my lack of understanding.

I came up with a variety of cogent points during this little debate, you went off on wild vectors about freedom of speech and other fallacious angles. Now you just give up when I keep pressing a very solid point to which you have no rebuttal. Why not just admit it? You lose. Your side is wrong.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

For the record... we cured AIDS this year... or at least we probably came as close as humanly possible.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
I wish her all the best for a good recovery. She seems like a pretty awesome person, and a much needed voice of sanity in Arizona.
Also she's married to an astronaut. That is an epic family!

If I was their child I'd just give up and commit suicide, there's no living up to their standards. Even if they're somehow those people who go "Your best is all we ask for" GOD I hate that, tiresome overachieving perfect people...AND ANOTHER THING!!!

lol, I was actually thinking the same thing.
"Mom, Dad, I cured cancer!!"
"Really, son? You mean you still haven't cured AIDS? Well, at least you're trying...."




Are you serious? How was this not headline news? Can you provide a link to this?

For the record... we cured AIDS this year... or at least we probably came as close as humanly possible.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
I wish her all the best for a good recovery. She seems like a pretty awesome person, and a much needed voice of sanity in Arizona.
Also she's married to an astronaut. That is an epic family!

If I was their child I'd just give up and commit suicide, there's no living up to their standards. Even if they're somehow those people who go "Your best is all we ask for" GOD I hate that, tiresome overachieving perfect people...AND ANOTHER THING!!!

lol, I was actually thinking the same thing.
"Mom, Dad, I cured cancer!!"
"Really, son? You mean you still haven't cured AIDS? Well, at least you're trying...."