@HugeJerk come on man,now you're just engaging in semantics,while ignoring voodoos point.

ok,lets play the semantics game and change the scenario,and see how comfortable you are with those scenarios:

@VoodooV has a video of your family member smoking weed...in a park.

@VoodooV has a video of your family member participating in a winter solstice ritual and his companies owner is a strict,religious fundamentalist.

(and before you throw out that firing over religious reasons is illegal,understand that the companies boss is not an idiot.your family member will be fired for other reasons,but rest assured..he is GONE).

@VoodooV has a video of your family member meeting with a lady of the evening.

would you like me to continue?
because in every one of these scenarios NOBODY was harmed,yet each one of those activities could bring great harm to your family member.

smoking weed harms no one,but it is illegal still in many states and many companies have a strict "drug-free' policy.(which i think is retarded)

engaging in a religious ritual,conforming to your family members belief system,harms no one,but is in direct conflict with the religious practices of the person who signs his checks.this would likely result in termination..with predjudice..but wait,thats against the law!! damn..foiled again!
aaaaah,but what is this?
the boss could just use another reason for termination.
the argument has been made that the owner of the company can do what he pleases..it is his company after all and he views paganism as heretical and against the wishes and dictates of GOD.
so your family member can just kiss his job goodbye.

or how about prostitution?
nobody was harmed.
sex between consensual adults for the exchange of currency.
but..its illegal...so bye bye to job.

and if @VoodooV was a particularly venal and nasty human being ,who REALLY wanted to impose his will upon your family member.he could just send those tapes to every new job your family member may have the luck to get.send them to creditors.apartment managers.etc etc.

@VoodooV could literally destroy your family members life,just by sending a video with an implied threat.

"if you do not take action about this person,i will expose YOU"

most people do not have the temerity to stand up to that form of bullying.they have businesses to run,bills to pay and families to protect.

and it is also why this tactic is so effective,because it WORKS.browbeating with the intent to force submission to a set of moral ideals held by a select,self righteous few.

it is like the dark ages!! but with broadband and iphones!!

so you better behave.
better obey all laws,real and social.
or the focus could become YOU,and not some turdnugget that is easy to hate.

Back to the Future.

Married with Children.

The Simpsons.

Ferris Buehler's anarchist ideology towards his and Cameron's upper class parents. Handing over the car keys to the lower class joy riders.

The Goonies going on adventures to prevent a golf course from overtaking their upper class lifestyle.

Was Mikey about to become middle class?! Holy shit. The Goonies is about retaining your social position in order to fund misadventure. And the rise of the middle class Hispanic family! i.e. Rosalita discovering the jewels in the marble bag.

Everything from the '80s involving a family was about -- Anyone? Anyone? -- Voodoo Economics.

Ha no shit, GL Quake made me buy a Voodoo 3D card back in the day.

Varoufakis is on stage at an IMK gig in Berlin right now. It was ~40 minutes of old news, really, at least if you've been following the developments over the last couple of months.

The interesting bit is that he's still making a clear commitment to a permanent primary surplus. For a country as devastated as Greece, that's austerity. Some argue that a 5% deficit over 5-10 years would be required to get Greece back on track, Bill Mitchell and Jamie Galbraith even make the case for running a 10% deficit to get some traction.

Since Varoufakis has to be aware that a primary surplus of any size is still contractionary, I wonder what funky accounting voodoo he has in mind to circumvent this contradiction. Just surplus recycling via the EIB? Who knows...

Edit: the ongoing panel discussion is interesting though.

Edit #2: the recording is now up again:
http://www.boeckler.de/veranstaltung_54282.htm (Varoufakis' talk begins at 12:30)

Edit #3: SPON has a piece on it this morning and one of the first comments correctly calls them out on it.

I dunno, I think Paul walked away with this one. Even Jon was like "what is this voodoo?"

Friend of mine gave me a plant the other week. Wierd little thing, just a corm and nothing else. No maintenance at all. Today, while I was at work, it blossomed.

Now I know that it's a voodoo lily. And that it smells like a dozen rotting carcasses. Seriously, my entire fucking apartment smells like Zombieland.

When I called her about it, she was laughing her ass off...

That is as factual as any of it. If people enter hell because they don't worship the correct god in the correct way, but have no way to tell which way/god is correct, or if any is, that is no fault of their own. If your proclaimed system was fair, god needs to come to each person and make them KNOW his truth, then offer them the choice to reject it. That's not what happens, no matter how many rainbows and sunsets you see.

I won't go to hell then, and neither will any real atheist. I've never seen/heard/read anything convincing about any religion...ever. I don't 'know there's a god' or right way to worship, it seems far more likely there isn't. I say this with all honesty and not because it's somehow convenient or I'm 'angry at god'. I did not 'reject' him, I don't think he exists to reject.

Mathew 7:14 seems to repeat what I said, it's incredibly hard to find the way into heaven and most people won't find the way...according to your brand of religion. It's not that they reject the way, they can't find it, even though many looked with vigor.

No, it's like some guy telling you in the courtroom hallway that the judge will say that, but no one has ever seen it happen, or even seen the judge or what happens after your case is heard, there are no ex cons at all anywhere. This is the same guy that's telling you what the law is, but make no mistake, he's not a lawyer and he's telling you things that make no sense at all (like the judge will let you off for murder if you just SAY you won't do it again).
I don't think even the most hard core murderers and rapist have NO remorse, only the true psychopaths and they're rare.

When I die and god and Jesus are there asking me questions and telling me what the rules really were, I'll believe in them and say so clearly, and admit I was wrong. Not a nano second before they prove themselves though.

Ahhh, but did we have a flat EKG and brain scan on Jesus to prove he even died? ;-)
Also, yes, 3 days later! If you eat poorly prepared blowfish you can go into a total paralysis that looks like death, and come out of it 3 days later +-! It's how Voodoo practitioners probably made 'zombies'. That doesn't happen every day, but often enough that you can't bury people in Japan right away if they eat sushi.

Still sounds like a logical fallacy to me, with some people shoving their heads in the sand to avoid seeing it. I say you can't have it both ways, the punishment is eternity in hell and Jesus should have stayed no matter how special he and his pops are, and since he left (after less than 3 days? pussy!), he didn't even take the punishment he expects humans to, forget taking that amount of punishment for each person. Saying he's 'special' so he didn't have to is ridiculous and shows the mind bending mental acrobatics you must do to make sense of this. It reminds me of the 'I'm too rich to have to go to prison' defense.

Oh, I see, I misunderstood what you were saying about the soul.

*discard and *kill and *fuck right off with your voodoo sensory responses

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence?

Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?

You should read your own links.

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution".

And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power.

Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

It may be that in the future that someone disproves evolution. But if they do, it will be through science, not creationist bollocks.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

I also don't study astrology, homeopathy, tarot cards, voodoo or crystal therapy because they are all long since proven to be complete bollocks.

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

Pixel Pioneers: A Brief History of Graphics, Part One has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Sprite Supreme: A Brief History of Graphics, Part Two has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Polygon Realm: A Brief History of Graphics, Part Three has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Voodoo Bloom: A Brief History of Graphics, Part Four has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Voodoo Bloom: A Brief History of Graphics, Part Four has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Voodoo Bloom: A Brief History of Graphics, Part Four has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Voodoo Bloom: A Brief History of Graphics, Part Four has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

In a way voodoo is right; it was my fault, and I did a lot of things wrong. Bringing a Christian voice to a secular site is also simply stirring up the hornets nest. Yet, it did happen and it is undeniable. Whether people think it is justified or not, that's up to them. All I know is that my intentions here were from my heart and I didn't mean any harm to anyone.

@blankfist

"Also, you and Voodoo should spend some time making substantive points instead of emotional arguments. "

I'm not the one who just posted a video about a guy who was unable to demonstrate his point rationally and had more than a couple meltdowns where he attacked the other guy with an ever raising voice and emotionally charged insults. Which is funny because he's responding to another video. It's not like the guy was there, yet he got so unhinged.

so you're nitpicking that I didn't detail each specific logical fallacy? the summary wasn't enough? If you honestly want to know, say so and I'll review the video again and point them out. But I don't think you really care. Once again, you're criticizing the existing system when you SHOULD be demonstrating how a non-statist system (or lack of a system as it were) would be better...but you arent...so it just leads me to believe that you latched on my lack of details on the fallacies as a distraction mechanism. so really who's being emotional here hrm?

but wait, you criticize my lack of detail, but when asked to demonstrate an anarchist worldview in action and how it's better than a statist one...suddenly you can't provide details...interesting the hypocrisy there

try again though.