>> ^shuac:

Could we please have a generation of tweens that are not stupid, just one, is that to too much to ask for.
Well, I expect tweens to be kinda stupid but I've been kidding myself about the average Videosifter's ability to write correctly, which is, I believe, symptomatic of intelligence. Oh well.


I was curious to see if you ever made a mistake while writing English.
Took 30 seconds to find this gem.
>> ^shuac:

I'd just like to say that I have no opinion about this video. I am apathetic like you read about.

I'd just like to say that I have no opinion about this video. I am apathetic like you read about.

Most people are going to be apathetic about this just like the majority in America are towards anything that goes on in Oakland. Oscar Grant riots, police brutality on dock workers... police brutality in general.

But, this is what is going to happen to all the Occupy movements so start caring right now and get the message out. This will happen to you too.

Love the apathetic singing from the cameraman.

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

I was an agnostic until I was suddenly given special revelation of Gods existence.
I found out later that this means I am elected, in that God already knew before He made anything that He would create me here and now for His purposes
Some Christians think everyone is elected. I don't, personally.

All I have to say is get the fuck over yourselves. You're not as smart as you think you are. How about you be honest and stop playing the philosophical gotchya game and admit there isn't a shred of evidence in your corner, what so ever, and if we want to get real, morality is inconvenient for your sinning so of course it has to go

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..

Now on your example of rape victims, there are different translations for the particular hebrew word. It's not clear that is what it is talking about. However, I'll address it in the literal sense, though I won't commit myself to this definition. Sex is considered the spiritual act of marriage. When people have relations they are cleaved together in the spirit. That's why fornication is forbidden. So, whether it was unfortunate or not, the couple were married spiritually at that point and thus they would only compound the sin by being seperated.

What Dan Savage does isn't sex. It's consensual sodomy. Thats part of what evil does is redefine the meanings of things. The love that two gay men have for eachother is not beautiful, it is repulsive. God does not approve of their union, and they should never be married. What they love is sin, and sin is not beautiful. It is an abomination before the Lord.

fornication is just plainly a sin, and for the reason that sex is a spiritual marriage between two people. You are spiritually joined to whomever you have sex with, forever.
maybe you reprobates can't imagine giving up your carnal lusts because its what you're living for, but that lifestyle is meaningless, sad and no better than what animals do.

Do you have even a modicum of dignity or self respect? You have promoted yourself as a harlot and you draw mens attention with lasciviousness. You are prostituting yourself and it is revolting.

If you care to give an argument that isn't based on hyperbole, I might actually engage you. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish, even if the ignoramouses on this site happen to agree with you. Any objective person who has studied this at length would find your conclusions childish at best.

I find it amusing that atheists like to say they are all great happy loving people who actually do more good works than the average Christian does. LOL This must be your non-neckbearded internet dwelling variety. Not at all the bitter, purile, egotists who love to trash believers at any opportunity that I've experienced. I'm sorry but atheists are terrible people. Immoral, selfish and apathetic to a T. Violent and angry too. Atheists are usually the worst kind of people you could imagine.

I'm not surprised by the bias of the sift, nor the childish behavior of its members..I was interested if anyone here had an inherent sense of fairness and could look past their own bias..but I guess not

Christians love atheists..just because we think you're wrong doesn't mean we don't love you. Atheists on the other hand seem to have nothing but hatred and derision for us..

You have the gall to impringe on my witness and imply im crazy..hey, at least im internally consistant.

I really think passive aggressive people are the worst kind of people besides atheists. Put them together and you've got a front seat to the 7th circle of hell. To me, you might as well be banging rocks together if you don't know you have a soul, or there is a God. People like this are mostly automated because they don't really know how anything works, or that God controls everything.

I don't deride anyone who doesn't believe me, I just happen to know anyone who isn't interested has become self-satisfied with the worldly understanding..which is worthless.

you can always look back on the glory days when you were a talking turd on the internet..

if he wants to be civil and converse like real people instead of rabid animals, I'll be here.


How is it that atheists seem to believe they can just go around and treat someone like garbage and talk down to them like children because they think they're right about something..why is this socially acceptable?

Yes, you're free to do whatever you want. Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot, you can live life the charlie sheen way, shallowly indulging yourself in all the puerile tripe you identify with a winning lifestyle.

You'll get to mock God for a little while and do what you want, until His mercy runs out and He takes you off of this world. You'll be found guilty at the judgement and then you'll join the devil and his angels in the lake of fire. Do you think you'll think it was worth it then? I'm betting not.

If you want to have an actual debate on civilized terms, I'll engage you. I've already answered enough of this bullshit. God is sovereign and can adjudicate His creation as He pleases. He destroyed the entire world in a flood, and that's everyone on the planet except for 8 people or so, and I don't think He was wrong.
Personally, if I was God I probably would have blown this fucking planet up a long time ago.
It's not an atrocity to take a life when you were the one who granted it in the first place and the one who sustained it daily.

What is contemptible, vainglorious and infinitely evil is the desire to disobey God and sin without consequence. Anyone who adovocates that deserves their punishment.

Gay rights? Sinners have no rights, they are a slave to sin. America is becoming more like babylon every day, especially in what it deserves as punishment for its actions.

Apparently homosexual atheists are in force these days.

as usual the sift turns off its brain

I am a highly rational and logical person , who has reasoned these things out to a much deeper level than any of you would be willing to give me credit for

You're entitled to your malformed, tumor-swollen opinion. Mine happens to have biblical justification.

In the context of a bunch of googly eyed mouth breathers saying God doesn't exist, where Satans special little helpers file in to preach their faith, not much is going to come out of this which is positive.

Wow, emote much? See what actually happened here is that you posted a bunch of information that wasn't true (while being rude and childish to boot), and I corrected you. Now, you send me a comment filled with personal attacks and call me immature. I'm guessing you're probably..15? Give me a break. Go do your homework and clean your room while you're at it.

I have better things to do than waste my time arguing on the internet for fun, and it's not fun to argue.

I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.

You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

The devil was once an ArchAngel who was created faultless,
He was in fact just an arrogant, prideful being who wanted all the power for himself.

One day, people will thank me for opening their mind up to how they've been lied to every day of their life and indoctrinated into a world system thats literally trying to drag them straight to hell.

Satan has you.

You need professional help. Seriously. Not kidding about this.



Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.



>> ^shinyblurry:

You think you were sent by God? Try again..
And no, being openly degraded and treated as inhuman isn't something I enjoy. I would rather have a civil conversation any day.

You are a victom of apathetic and almost defiantly inconsiderate dog owners. I have (directly) seen so many people not pick up poop; and abuse the parks in my neighborhood, that I reflexively think the worst when I see behavior that may imply dog shenanigans.

Since two folks haved shared education stories, I thought I'd share.

I grew up in Jackson Mississippi, yet despite how people perceive education there, most of my teachers were phenomenal. They cared about their subjects, and cared about us well enough to push us in ways we didn't like. I ended up graduating with a few college credits, and an eagerness to learn.

I remember a science teacher assigning me a science project to enter in a local competition. I did a eighth half ass job on it, the night before. But on a school day, she drove me to the convention center and made me stand there in humiliation in front of all the other kids who actually worked on their assignments and the judges who scrutinized me and asked me questions. That embarrassment and exposure woke me up a little about the consequences of doing a low quality job.

I've also had great civics and history teachers who cared enough to seriously address me and others when we challenged some of the assumptions underlying our system of government and its history. From what others have told me of apathetic teachers, I now think this engagement is/was not so common.

I remember taking trigonometry one summer; not because I had to take it over, but because a teacher volunteered to teach an extra course for people where were interested. She showered attention and encouragement on all of the pupils, and made an intimidating subject actually fun. That allowed me to take calculus in the fall with higher confidence in my math abilities.

These experiences stand out in my memory, but the level of engagement and enthusiasm was typical for my k-12 teachers.

A "bad" teacher? Once we had a physics teacher who had recently immigrated from China. His english was terrible, and he taught the class as though we were graduate students, not high school kids. He was also fit the stereotype of the awkward, bumbling egg head; once, in a lecture, he somehow bumped into an eye washer, and drenched his pants (worn up to his upper waist). In the middle of the semester, he had visa problems and we saw little of him since. I'm not sure how we learned any thing in that class.

Our books were OK, but the teachers were never shy about using outside materials to enhance the lesson, or having us bring in things relevant to the lessons.

>> ^Sarzy:

I'm sorry, I thought I was debating with a vaguely rational person. "Death squad"??
I'm done.>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.



You're done? what, apologizing for murderous thugs?
Good call!

I'm sorry, I thought I was debating with a vaguely rational person. "Death squad"??

I'm done.>> ^marbles:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).


Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?


I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.

As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?

They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

>> ^Sarzy:

Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world


You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

♪ One of these things is not like the others. ♪

>> ^shinyblurry:
I guess that's the difference between us..Christians love atheists..just because we think you're wrong doesn't mean we don't love you.

>> ^shinyblurry:
The love that two gay men have for eachother is not beautiful, it is repulsive.

>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm sorry but atheists are terrible people. Immoral, selfish and apathetic to a T. Violent and angry too. Atheists are usually the worst kind of people you could imagine.

>> ^shinyblurry:
I really think passive aggressive people are the worst kind of people besides atheists. Put them together and you've got a front seat to the 7th circle of hell.

It's not a strawman argument, it's a fact; no argument needed. And I didn't say that all whites or even a majority are racists. I do think that most Americans of any color are apathetic, and would rather watch (and catch on phone video) a person suffering distress, than help. Apathy is all you need, not outright hostility, but today there is plenty of both.

Sure, you and I can make the distinction between reasonable public and private services. But what about these state politicians who are passing birther bills (various states), trying to privatize their health care systems (LA), and trying to nullify federal laws they don't like (various states). Not to mention the tea-idiots in Washington. I don't trust these fools to get those nuances, and I thank god every day that the federalists won out way-back-when. Because as much as some of these people say the federal government is too big and intrusive, they don't care if at the state/local level, things are run by fiat.

Since they don't get nuance, I get very nervous when on one hand, some politicians want everything privatized, then others say that private entities can serve who they want. A nice one-two punch.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
Even in 2011 you can walk into a restaurant or public establishment and not get served due to race.
With the number of racist kooks that have come out of the woodwork since Obama's election, it's not hard to believe that given the opportunity, a segregationist belt could emerge in this country again.
I think many libertarians don't care about that because, since it is a white majority country and most libertarians are white, they won't have to live with the negative consequences of a libertarian policy that removed anti-segregationist regulation. >> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
I liked those ideas, but I still don't think I would be confortable living in his ideal america. I'd be sitting in the back of greyhound, and using separate bathrooms at Walmart.

That's ridiculous. No way. Segregation would never happen again. Never. Even if you repealed every law in the land.


I'm talking about segregation in terms of public services and places, not refusal of private services. Think more Rosa Parks and the segregated school systems from the 50s and 60s. I think the majority of people believe that segregation is bad, so you won't see it among most private companies.
So, it is hard to believe that a "segregationist belt" would emerge if given the opportunity. And it's a copout to say that the majority of people in any party are white, because the US population is so. Means nothing and it's a straw man argument. I could say that the majority of Democrats are white, but that's just statistical numbers.
Also, just because you're white doesn't make you a racist.

Not a single person has been killed in the name of Atheism. So fuck right off, you wretched scum.>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm sorry but atheists are terrible people. Immoral, selfish and apathetic to a T. Violent and angry too. Atheists are usually the worst kind of people you could imagine.