Bob Barker was in that clip? I heard him talking but I never saw him, didn't really here what he was saying either.

Barker was a notorious hound-dog - the very definition of a dirty old man, really. Without any doubt if he could have had his druthers he would have used his position of power to bed the chick. He used up and spit out his 'prize girls' on a regular basis.

Boob Barker.

Oh, that's different. And stupid, by her.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^Quboid:
>> ^Sarzy:
Seems to me that the more noteworthy thing about this video is the crazy lady bidding $999 when someone else had already bid $1000. I don't think she realizes how the game works...

Is that not a good tactic? It's whoever is closest isn't it? Therefore by guessing 1 dollar below, any price below $1000 would give her the win (except for other <1000 bids, which there is one). I've never seen The Price is Right so I'm not sure about the rules.
I thought that was Eva Longoria at first. She's certainly pretty.

It's actually whoever is closest without going over. The usual tactic is to bid one dollar over the last guy's bid, not one dollar under. The lady made a stupid mistake; the only way she could have won with her bid is if she got the price exactly right.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^Sarzy:
Seems to me that the more noteworthy thing about this video is the crazy lady bidding $999 when someone else had already bid $1000. I don't think she realizes how the game works...

Is that not a good tactic? It's whoever is closest isn't it? Therefore by guessing 1 dollar below, any price below $1000 would give her the win (except for other <1000 bids, which there is one). I've never seen The Price is Right so I'm not sure about the rules.
I thought that was Eva Longoria at first. She's certainly pretty.


It's actually whoever is closest without going over. The usual tactic is to bid one dollar over the last guy's bid, not one dollar under. The lady made a stupid mistake; the only way she could have won with her bid is if she got the price exactly right.

>> ^Sarzy:

Seems to me that the more noteworthy thing about this video is the crazy lady bidding $999 when someone else had already bid $1000. I don't think she realizes how the game works...


Is that not a good tactic? It's whoever is closest isn't it? Therefore by guessing 1 dollar below, any price below $1000 would give her the win (except for other <1000 bids, which there is one). I've never seen The Price is Right so I'm not sure about the rules.
I thought that was Eva Longoria at first. She's certainly pretty.

Your video, Bob Barker can't control his eyes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

Barker is only human, and apparently quite hetero.

>> ^hpqp:

So let me paraphrase:
Derp: "Hey herp, stop protecting your kid, I want to torture it, kill its friends and make it hate you for abandoning it."
Herp: "Sure, torture away!"
Million dollar question: is Herp a moral person/being?
Bonus question: if Herp is all-powerful, what is he protecting his kid from in the first place?


I agree 100% with what you wrote here. The Book of Job presents a major contradiction to the idea of a benevolent, omniscient God. Which is why I think Dan Barker majorly dropped the ball here on what should have been a slam dunk.

>> ^hpqp:

But the whole point here is that the religious mindset causes an otherwise moral person (they all agreed the first scenario was wrong) to condone an immoral action if it was for religious reasons. Case in point: suicide and murder in Islam, both major "sins", are seen as okay if part of Jihad.


See, if this was Dan Barker's point, I think he screwed it up royally. He's comparing apples and oranges. I can do the same thing he did and get the same results with a completely non-religious issue:

Let's say someone breaks in a family's home in the middle of the night and terrorizes them--holds them at gunpoint, ties them up, and tortures them (similar to the original example). After having his way with them for some time, the criminal starts to kill each family member in front of the others, starting with the kids. After killing the wife, the criminal is about to kill the husband when the husband is able to break free of his bindings. A struggle ensues and the husband overcomes the criminal and ties the criminal up.

Now, remember, the criminal is secure. The husband makes sure the binds are tight and the criminal can't go anywhere. Instead of calling the police, though, the husband picks up the criminal's gun and shoots the criminal right in the head, instantly killing him. Is the husband a murderer?

I think you would find a majority of people who say yes.

The criminal was subdued and no longer a threat. In the American legal system, the husband would most likely be found guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter. It was clearly a revenge killing and the only thing in question really is the mental state of the husband at the time it takes place: was he upset enough that it was manslaughter or did he do it in cold blood?

Now, let's change the scenario slightly. The husband never breaks free. The criminal gleefully and cruelly kills him. After fleeing from the scene of the crime, the criminal later is captured by police and put on trial for his crimes. He's found guilty on all counts due to overwhelming evidence and is sentenced to death. After a lengthy appeals process that takes over a decade, the death sentence is carried out by the state.

Question: Is the state guilty of murder?

You will find that far fewer people are willing to say that the state is guilty of murder. But why don't they? Isn't it the same situation? The criminal is just as guilty of the crimes in either case--the trial just made the guilt official. The criminal has been apprehended and is secure in prison. Surrounded by thick walls, steel bars, and armed guards, he no longer represents a threat to the public. At his execution he is tied down and given a lethal injection (which is dissimilar from being tied up and shot in the head really only in the amount mess that needs to be cleaned up afterwards).

So what's different? What's "clouding the moral judgment" of the people who declare the husband guilty of murder but won't declare the state guilty of murder? Aren't they contradicting themselves?

No, not really. The answer is simply that people attribute different rights to people than they do to government. Almost any basic definition of government requires that government be authorized to use force to obtain compliance from the governed (see Weber's theory)--up too and including lethal force. People who don't believe the state to be guilty of murder believe the state has the right to deprive those who commit serious enough crimes of their life (for a variety of stated reasons such as discouraging other criminals, providing justice for the victims, etc.). An individual, on the other hand, does not have such a right. In other words, it's immoral for the individual to redress the wrong themselves, but it isn't immoral for the state to do so, according to death penalty proponents, on the basis of individual and governmental rights.

(For the record, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. If you're interested in my reasons, please ask me on my profile rather than derail this thread).

And that is why Dan got the audience response he did. People agree that a human butchering another human is immoral, but ascribe a different set of rights to the Biblical God. In particular, in the more conservative Christian traditions, humans are seen as "belonging" to the Biblical God and to be done with as He pleases.

So I wasn't surprised at all at the response that Dan Barker got. He compared apples and oranges and then seemed surprise when people weren't willing to claim an apple was an orange. Given how ripe the Book of Job is for criticizing many of the basic tenets of Christian belief, I kind of face-palmed when I heard his argument. He had a great chance here to make some keen points (the ones @hpqp raised above) and he completely missed it, I think. What he certainly didn't show was that the audience condoned immoral actions by humans in the name of religion. He simply showed that Christians ascribe different rights to their god than they do to humans. He seems outraged by that, but--as I just showed above--many of us do the same sort of thing with non-religious institutions like government so I'm not sure why he seems so shocked.

So in summary--I didn't upvote because I found the argument to be weak-sauce.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dan barker, dinesh dsouza, experiment, bible, double standards' to 'dan barker, dinesh dsouza, experiment, bible, double standards, book of job' - edited by xxovercastxx

It's my sense that the connection between racism and climate change is as follows: The minority groups that are most at risk of racism are also the likely victims of climate change if people, individually and collectively, choose to do little or nothing about it -- due to having less access to institutional resources or to properties that will go unaffected by climate change.
Such reasoning comes from the notion that when the first world fails to act on climate change issues, it's the third world that tends to suffer the gravest consequences.

>> ^longde:

WTF does race have to do with a discussion on climate change? That came completely out of left field.
Also, the fox presenter has the color coordination of a carnival barker.

WTF does race have to do with a discussion on climate change? That came completely out of left field.

Also, the fox presenter has the color coordination of a carnival barker.

Bob Barker?

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Travis Barker Plays Soulja Boy's "Crank That" on Drums. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Pre
sident Obama to Donald Trump:
“We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers who just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts. We do not have time for this kind of silliness. I've got better stuff to do.”

This whole birther bullshit is simply Embarrassing. When you show such insane disrespect to the President of your country, based on racist xenophobia and partisan politics, you demonstrate an ignorance and idiocy of significant proportion.