https://www.gocomics.com/brevity/2023/09/30

I don't trust your video, not even a little bit.

I know you just dismissed opposing evidence earlier up thread, but here's a link to audio recordings and english transcripts the NSA captured and posted from Israeli helicopters in the area at the time. Again, I know you dismiss it, but they certainly were uncertain of what had just been hit/attacked.

https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/uss-liberty/recordings.shtml

Friendly fire is a fact of war, Canadians on a training mission in Afghanistan where killed by USAF runs despite their training operation and location being registered with the airforce. Fatal screw ups happen in war so it seems much less of a stretch to call this an accident than a deliberate scheme against an ally.

You go ahead and believe some video referring to the 'mockingbird media' and using literally 4-5 words of audio and leaving out all other communications though, I'm sure they left it out for brevity and not because it contradicts their narrative. That's something only the mockingbird media would do...

Or perhaps more briefly, provide a little better evidence before acting like this is as clear cut as our knowledge that the earth is round...

@Payback -- The Youtube comments area is not to be considered a potential source of rational discussion.

Assume that one concedes to your point about "terminal velocity" being the wrong phrase to use here. What would be better? And I'll note that there are many potential metrics for "better" -- conveying the correct idea precisely, doing so in a concise manner, etc.

"Neodymium Magnets Reaching a Velocity at Which the Centrifugal Force Upon Them Exceeds the Magnetic Force Holding Them Together" makes for a more accurate title, but might lose brevity points. The "Terminal Velocity" title conveys maybe only 75% of the accuracy of the more precise title, but with a greater than 25% savings in length (5 words vs 19). Although I'm sure a more optimally brief AND accurate title exists.

Not trying to be snarky, and I 100% agree that there are situations where saying something with complete accuracy and careful precision is extremely important. But perhaps an online video about magnets spinning apart can be at least partially excused for opting for brevity over accuracy, especially in something as trivial as the title. Especially when the inaccuracy can be noted and explained in the comments section by well meaning viewers.

I'm fine with the butthurt anti-PC brigade thinking whatever nonsense they want, but damn if there's one word I wish they'd learn it's "brevity".

omg, I wish more people realized how much brevity is the soul of information depletion.

Yeah, it goes the other way too, but sound bites simply can't tell a story.

Honestly not sure what your point is here.

Are you saying I don't understand how fucked up your system is?
Or that you appreciate how fucked up it is and I don't?
Or that it's not fucked up?

I'm all for pithy responses, but you really need clarity as well as brevity.

Almost anything would have been better. To my mind, the single biggest flaw with the prequels was that the originals focused on a small set of largely likeable characters who were generally together having adventures in space. The Prequels were just all over the place and there weren't really any likeable characters, and... and... for the sake of brevity, let's just say they suck in every way.

Also, for the love of god, George Lucas should not have been allowed to direct. He is a terrible, terrible, terrible director. Everyone knows that. Everyone has known that since the first one, and George should have known that too. He isn't a great artist in any sense of the word. I'd say the prequels are a textbook example of why the role of director is so important. How can such an accomplished cast deliver a performance barely better than what you'd expect from, say, "Sharktopus."

I think the next three will be decent. They don't have to be great (and really, the original three weren't *great* per se, they were just novel fun, imaginative, and hit a sweet spot. I think JJ Abrams will do fine.

Anyways, this guys plot would have worked. So would have a lot of others though.

Actually, that's exactly what I say, and average modern human morality is considerably superior to the filth that the biblical God advocates.

The moral standard of western civilization is founded upon judeo-christian beliefs. Read:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595555455/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366921071&sr=8-1&keywords=book+that+made+your+world

Following the morality the biblical God advocates is the hardest thing you will ever do. The standard of today is a superficial, politically correct morality where you pretend to be nice to people but curse them when they aren't around. God requires a transformation on the inside where you have genuine love for your fellow man.

I am only saying that they are wrong by todays generally agreed upon moral standards. Some of these moral standards are extremely effective and have been around since very early human communities, so they only have the illusion of being absolute due to high adherence rate.

Are you saying nigh universal adherence to certain moral standards isn't evidence for an absolute standard of morality?

Murder, theft, oppression and incest are three fairly obvious examples. The evolutionarily advantageous trait of society building tends to list it's effectiveness when such things are widespread. But we have a very long human tradition of sanctioning and celebrating murder and theft as long as it occurs well outside our cohort. Killing other tribes is celebrated in the bible, as is stealing their possessions. Ethically justified slavery took another 4000 years to mostly get rid of, and hell, it was common practice to fuck your fifteen year old cousin all the way up to about the late 1800s here in the good old US of A as long as it was under the marital auspices of the church, of course.

Yep, but thank God that his just definition of morality - if we didn't have god's guidance through scripture, we'd probably do crazy shit!

You don't understand what God was doing in the Old Testament, or why He did it the way He did. It is morally consistent with His goodness and holiness, and there are logical reasons for why this is so. So far you are not interested in hearing them or discussing them. When you are let me know. In the end you don't have any excuse for suppressing the truth about Jesus, no matter what you think about how God acted in the Old Testament.

Using the word 'absolute' is a concession to brevity, but nice try - seriously dude, this is laughable and it wouldn't even stand up in Jr. High debate - absolutes do exist, they just need to be well justified, and yes if you want to be nitpicky about it there is an ever so remote chance that 1+1 is not equal to two in some distant corner of the universe. But as humans with an admittedly limited scope of understanding, we have to accept that level of certainty. If you want to relegate your theory to claiming its space somewhere in the possibility that we might be wrong about the whole 2+2=4 thing, go right on ahead.

There, that's what I meant by absolute. happy?

Basically, what you're saying is that because 2+2 probably equals four everywhere in the Universe, you are free to make absolute statements about morality? The fact is that your belief system leaves you with no justification for any absolute statement what so ever. Why should 2 + 2 always equal 4 in the first place? Can you tell me why the laws of physics should work in the same way 5 seconds from now without using circular reasoning?

Can you justify any piece of knowledge without God? If you can then tell me one thing you know and how you know it. Could you be wrong about everything you know?

Well then thanks for the offer, but I think I'll pass in the whole god based morality thing. I prefer to have a really good reason to never slaughter innocent kids. But thanks for finally answering my question: there has been a good reason to butcher a toddler after all! Praise The Lord, for he is good!

It comes back to the same question: As the giver of life, and the adjudicator of His Creation, is it wrong for God to take life?

And here's another interesting brain tickler. If everything god commands is right, and god has a track record of testing his faithful with their willingness to commit infanticide, how can you say that this lady isn't moral?

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-08-17/news/0108170166_1_baby-s-death-baby-s-father-documents

The scripture is finished and anything which contradicts it is not of God.

Wrong, I know that things are wrong because humans and cultures have a long history of interacting with reality, and certain strategies have been more successful than others. You haven't spent one iota of your time discrediting this notion, whereas I have given you plenty of examples crediting mine and discrediting yours.

What I am supposed to be discrediting? You're asking me to nail jello to a wall. You have not even defined what "successful" is supposed to mean beyond pure survival. In that case, every civilization has been successful. Tell me what your definition of success is supposed to be.

For the millionth time, I have no hopes of convincing you of anything - you'll defend your stance against literally any proof. But you seem to come here on the sift with the intent of demonstrating to others that there is some logical basis for your beliefs.

What proof? The foundation of atheism stands upon the shifting sands of relative truth. You, the atheist, ultimately make yourself the measure of all truth. Because of that, you can't tell me a single fact about the world that you can justify.

Well you're failing miserably, mainly because you are only capable of restating the following sentence as if it is an agreed upon truth:

"Not only is the entire concept logically contradictory, but it doesn't match our experience, which is that some things are absolutely wrong. "

I don't expect you to have any good support for that, but the audience out there just waiting to be convinced, they will need at least something.

Torturing babies for fun; not absolutely wrong?

I'm still waiting for you to give Stalin some kind, any kind of argument as to why he should adopt your morality and abandon his own. If you can't tell Stalin why he is wrong, then you have no hope of escaping the charge of incoherency.

"... If people rob and cheat you, you don't say that they are just executing their particular survival strategy, you say that those things are wrong. You know they are wrong because you have a God given conscience which tells you that they are. "

Actually, that's exactly what I say, and average modern human morality is considerably superior to the filth that the biblical God advocates.

I am only saying that they are wrong by todays generally agreed upon moral standards. Some of these moral standards are extremely effective and have been around since very early human communities, so they only have the illusion of being absolute due to high adherence rate.

Murder, theft, oppression and incest are three fairly obvious examples. The evolutionarily advantageous trait of society building tends to list it's effectiveness when such things are widespread. But we have a very long human tradition of sanctioning and celebrating murder and theft as long as it occurs well outside our cohort. Killing other tribes is celebrated in the bible, as is stealing their possessions. Ethically justified slavery took another 4000 years to mostly get rid of, and hell, it was common practice to fuck your fifteen year old cousin all the way up to about the late 1800s here in the good old US of A as long as it was under the marital auspices of the church, of course.

Yep, but thank God that his just definition of morality - if we didn't have god's guidance through scripture, we'd probably do crazy shit!

Do you see that these are absolute statements? On what grounds do you say there is no absolute morality? Saying there are no rules is a rule; this statement contradicts itself

Using the word 'absolute' is a concession to brevity, but nice try - seriously dude, this is laughable and it wouldn't even stand up in Jr. High debate - absolutes do exist, they just need to be well justified, and yes if you want to be nitpicky about it there is an ever so remote chance that 1+1 is not equal to two in some distant corner of the universe. But as humans with an admittedly limited scope of understanding, we have to accept that level of certainty. If you want to relegate your theory to claiming its space somewhere in the possibility that we might be wrong about the whole 2+2=4 thing, go right on ahead.

There, that's what I meant by absolute. happy?

When God issued the command to wipe out Canaan, it would have been immoral for the Israelites to disobey Him.

Well then thanks for the offer, but I think I'll pass in the whole god based morality thing. I prefer to have a really good reason to never slaughter innocent kids. But thanks for finally answering my question: there has been a good reason to butcher a toddler after all! Praise The Lord, for he is good!

Dag, no. I just liked the video and wanted to post it. I am a fan of Brevity (the group who did this). My friend told me about this site and I thought this would be a cool video to post first. Should I post a different one first? I read something about a discard invocation. Should I do that and try again? I'm sorry. I don't want to get banned I just don't know what I'm doing.

this is awesome. I love angry unicorns. well done, people of brevity, well done.

Oddly enough, I did write what I meant: I stopped reading. There was no need to read any further.

Quotes are quite a fun concept. You can literally transcribe what someone said, as in; Paul said, "I went to the mall." Or, you can use them as people would in actual dialogue between people. At that point they're referred to as "air quotes." For instance: "I told her I'd "help" her out." It requires an understanding of context. For instance, when I say "properly cleared" I very explicitly mean the person clearing the gun thinks they have done it properly, and would testify to said statement, but in reality they have done something wrong.

The person may honestly believe they have done everything correctly, or they may take shortcuts believing they are still in the right. Most people would refer to using quotes in this sense as being "ironic." Of course, that is technically an improper use of the word, however, it is colloquially correct.

In this case, my quotes would indicated that the gun owner believes they have properly cleared the gun, but in fact, has not. However, the gun owner would claim they "properly cleared" the gun before they shot themselves in the face. Of course, the use of quotes is also to illustrate that those of us who understand that most gun accidents similar to this stems from a lack of respect for the proper mechanics of clearing a firearm for safety.

For the sake of brevity I will say that the major cause of accidents is the owner believes they have "properly cleared" the firearm. Or, if you'd like, you can read the above 3 paragraphs. The point of the written word and the years and years of English education is so we can communicate succinctly, not write novels in a medium where anything longer than 2 paragraphs is dismissed as "too long." (In this case, the quotes are to indicate that the definition of "too long" can obviously be interpreted differently and thus giving a set value would be a gross misrepresentation.)