@NetRunner

An accurate title would reflect what they were actually debating, not minor points delivered along the way that could be removed without anyone noticing. The debate was: Were we attacked because of our actions?

If Ron Paul had said: "This is the 21st century and government doesn't have any business regulating women's reproductive choices" and the audience booed, it wouldn't be accurate to title the video: "Ron Paul: This is the 21st century; Tea Party: Boooo"


All the above commenters who are supporting and enabling the spread of an inaccurate video without watching it closely can reasonably be regarded as supporting inaccuracy. In Xaielao's comment immediately preceding yours, he even quotes the inaccurate title approvingly.

This is why our undergraduate professors encouraged us (to no avail) to read skeptically and deconstruct media instead of accepting it without question.

Come now, we can do better than 32 paltry upvotes.

Celebrate Freddie's birthday properly: by deconstructing his greatest accomplishment.

*promote

@dystopianfuturetoday, you know I'm in your camp, but that reads like a tea-party manifesto. It emphasizes deconstruction without worrying about our lack of agreement on the subsequent reconstruction. In some ways, I'm with @raverman. We need to sort out the ideological differences we've laid bare particularly over these past few years. That's why I think publicized presidential debates between Ron Paul and Barack Obama could be good for the country. IMO, you'd get some good, honest, civil discussion. It would give Paul the opportunity to bring Obama to task on some of the issues where he even loses the left; and it would give Obama an opportunity to talk to the rightwing frankly about the mapping between economics and reality.

Plus, I don't think Paul can win the general anyway. I'll concede that it would be disastrous if he did. Who could he take as a running mate?

Ultimately, I think the crux of the ideological issue is the absoluteness of private property "rights," and the mechanism of common ownership.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

(tap tap). Is this thing on?>> ^rougy:

>> ^dag:
Not me. I've already gone through manopause. >> ^rougy:
So which of you is on the rag this time?



Manopause...that's where a dude can't get it up any more, isn't it?

And hey! What's not funny about menstruation? Cracks me up every time!
And note the dystopian, deconstructive antithesis of my menstruation allusion apropos of the original ejaculatory metaphor?
Took me hours to do that!

>> ^dag:

Not me. I've already gone through manopause. >> ^rougy:
So which of you is on the rag this time?



Manopause...that's where a dude can't get it up any more, isn't it?



And hey! What's not funny about menstruation? Cracks me up every time!

And note the dystopian, deconstructive antithesis of my menstruation allusion apropos of the original ejaculatory metaphor?

Took me hours to do that!

>> ^Pprt:

DerHasisttot, I fear you've been totally consumed by two particularly devious and masochistic mental afflictions, counterproductive critical theory and cultural Marxism.
I have just read someone who honestly believes that a lowly bird is worth protection but would not lift a finger to defend human culture because "all cultures are equal and none is more worthwhile than another". Correspondingly, it does not matter if one of them disappears or if all of them disappear. Effectively, you believe in everything and nothing at the same time.
You are a destroyer of nations because you do not believe in nations.
My only advice is that you realize that we live in a world where Europeans are the ONLY people who are affected by these social ills. No other culture is masochistic, they are proud of themselves for who they are.. for better or for worse.
I can only hope that, through time and personal experience, you may come to realize that your own culture (and every culture) is worthy of conservation.
That's if it's still around you in old age.


You have not understood how I thoroughly deconstructed your premise. Cultures are inconservable. I never said that all cultures are equal. I said they are enhancing each other. The best things stay, the others fall away.

You are either a troll or an enormous, racist ideological (maybe even Nazi) -asshole whose life would be best spend scrubbing sewers so your brainfarts do not stink up the place. I will not respond to you anymore.

I watched some of your video..I may finish it at some point. I have to give it credit, it's quite a sophisticated attack vehicle for atheism. It attempts to decontruct the mechanisms for faith but so far it has some glaring errors. In the video covering prayer in the deconstruction process, it has a fundemental misunderstanding of Gods omniscience and the purpose of prayer. While it is true that God knows our needs before we ask

Matthew 6:8

Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

it isn't true that God has already decided a matter before we ask about it.

Genesis 18:17-25

Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Now this is a special case, but Abraham negotiated with God and He decided what to do based on that negotiation. It is the same with prayer. The Lord may be set to do one thing, but may change His mind based on intercessory prayer done by one or several Christians. He may impart a blessing upon someone that normally wouldn't have received it if no one had asked about it.

Prayer is more than just asking for things, it is about communion and growth. Your friend made the mistake of making the Lord completely impersonal, by thinking he was just receiving commands from the master control. Ironically, he thought this was bringing him closer in his personal relationship with God when it was actually driving him apart. This is what happens when people think they know better than God.

1 Thessalonians 5:17

Pray without ceasing.

Luke 6:28

bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

etc

I feel bad for him, specifically because of this scripture:


Hebrews 6:4-6

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

It is quite shameful what he has done, and I can tell you there is more to this story than he is saying. It's not that I doubt the essential truth of his story, that he was once a devout Christian. That much was obvious to me the first time I heard him speak and looked in his eyes. There is just another spirit at work here which doesnt match the atheistic mindset. It's hard to say what his agenda is but it's not pro-atheist. It's pro-something else, but whatever it is, it's anti-christianity. The pretense of respect he is giving God is just a subterfuge..he doesn't have any respect for God what so ever..it's just to make the medicine go down smoother. The repetitive music is another clue to the disingenuousness of the presentation.

As for me, I don't fit any of his criteria. I was once just like you. Blind to the spirit, a strict materialistic, and suspicious of all religion and all supernatural claims. I rejected most of it as outright nonsense. I grew up that way and saw no reason to change.

One day God tapped me on the shoulder and let me know He was there. Your guess is as good as mine as to why. It's not as if I deserved to know. If I had to guess it would be that I was honestly interested in what the truth was, and I was willing to change my ways if necessary. It was more important for me to know the truth than to be right.

To convince myself God isn't there I would have to give myself a lobotomy. I would have to gouge my eyes out and pour superglue in my ears. I would have to do it deliberately, in spite of Him..meaning, I would have to deliberately deceive myself but I am fairly certain He wouldn't let me forget.

In reference to your scenerio, I think you make a mistake about Gods omniscience as well. God doesn't have absolute foreknowledge in this scenerio. For instance in Gen. 15:13-18 God predicts that the fourth generation of israelites will reach Cannan. But it is actually the fifth generation that reaches it because of disobedience. This means His prediction was based on probability.

For a being to truly have free will, their actions must to a certain extent be unpredictable to God. After God had Abraham prove his loyalty to Him by going through with sacrificing Issaic, God said "Now I know you love me". The verse suggests that until that moment, God didn't know that for sure.

This isn't to suggest God doesn't have foreknowledge at all. He obviously does, since He prophicies about things hundreds or thousands of years away and they come true. It is to suggest that God limited Himself for our sake. We have evidence of this in the person of Jesus Christ. Though He was God, He put aside His power and capability and knowledge to be fully submitted to the Fathers will. He depended on the Father for everything. Not just as an example, but for His mission to be accomplished through His revelation of the Father to the people.

It goes to the ontological argument, of what is the greater being. The one who cannot do anything original because everything he could do has already been done in His mind, or the one who can craft something even He couldn't fully anticipate. I go for option 2. It doesn't make sense for God to get mad at someone for doing something He already knew was going to happen.

My theory is the scenerio itself is certain. It has a beginning, it has an end. What is inbetween He may have certain ideas about, but obviously open to modification. He may plan for every possible scenerio but never quite know which will unfold because He has given us a measure of unpredictability.

So in this scenerio..

God creates a perfect world, giving man a blank slate for good or evil

Man chooses evil, God enforces the rules, death comes into the world and creation falls

Man is corrupted from sin and does continual evil that God is always trimming back and correcting

God works within the evil man creates, but it reaches the point of no return..

God is ready to give up on humans but finds one human he can work with

God resets the world, gives man another chance through Noah

Man is up to his old tricks but God sends His Son into the world this time to redeem Creation

Jesus imputes His righteouness and sinless nature into humanity, restoring them, takes our just punishment onto Himself and dies on the cross for our sins

He rises again breaking the power of death over humanity (which came from sin) and giving everyone the way to eternal life

God sets a date to judge the world, and will send His Son back when the church has spread the gospel to the four corners..

Jesus returns, comes back for His church and destroys the kingdom of the antichrist.

God judges the world and repays each according to their deeds
After the judgement, God destroys the corrupt creation and remakes it entirely new, and this time it will be permanently perfect. Thanks to Christ, the ones who believed in Him will have perfected natures and will sin no more and live forever in paradise

If you want to talk about greed and self-interest that is fine. I am a student of the human nature, and have many logical proofs I can offer even from a secular perspectives. My communication can always use fine tuning, however, I endevour that people should know the truth, because though they may stubbornly reject it at this point, will at some point need it, and more than that, just plain need to hear it. You discount the power of God completely, but I know He is always at work and the truth will facilitate that every time. I also appreciate that you noticed the unfair treatment I am receiving from other sifters. There is no reason to downvote these videos. They are well made and aren't masquarading as anything other than what they are. It's not as if they're in danger of becoming popular. They sin when they do this, and this is written about them:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I do dig Ecclesiastes - easily the most raw, human and cynical chapter of the good book.
http://videosift.com/video/Scorpion-vs-Black-Widow-Intense-sheesh?loadcomm=1#comment-290039
In short, here is why I think the main, overarching plot of the Bible is silly.
Summary:
God creates flawed humans.
Flawed humans do flawed things.
God punishes all present and future humans because of the flaws in his prototypes.
After many generations, God drowns 99.9% of his land dwelling creatures save two of each. (not sure why the fish get off so easy)
Despite this massive genocide, humans are still flawed.
God impregnates a human virgin woman - in a committed relationship - without consent - who gives birth to a human/God hybrid son. (Kinda weird and rape-y to be honest)
The son is tortured and 'dies for our sins'. (What does that even mean, couldn't God just forgive us without this cruel theatrical charade that so few people of the world are physically able to witness?)
Jesus comes back from the dead (which isn't really that big of a deal, considering he is a part God).
Finally, after all of this violence and suffering, God decides to destroy the world, and take those who believe in him to heaven, and to punish those with skeptical or scientific minds with eternal suffering.
I mean, I guess I can understand mass murder, if God thinks so little of us that our destruction is no more tragic than Atari burying thousands of copies of E.T. in the desert. But if we are insignificant ants, then why the strict moral code that forbids murder? Are we unique and special creatures, or just crash test dummies to be toyed with?
None of the actions of God seem wise for a being of such knowledge and power. The Bible sounds like mythology. It sounds like a combination of campfire stories, moral parables, juicy pulp fiction, dirty jokes, political posturing, medical advice and pre-scientific speculation. It sounds like an anthology of the best of the best literature of early human civilization.
If God were real, why doesn't he just openly and clearly communicate it? Why all the rites and rituals? "Hey, dft, this is God you atheist schmuck.... or should I say ex-athiest schmuck. Put down the pork and put on your beanie!" That would be clear and to the point, and if done convincingly, would add a pretty decent guy to the ranks of his faithful.
Also, his followers are so hung up on pride, that they miss a good chance of making a connection. I told you that I don't believe in Satan, but that I do oppose the greed and ruthless self interest that your Satan seems want to champion. If you cared more about the principles of the bible than the principals in the Bible, wouldn't you be serving your lord better? Shouldn't you nurture the things we have in common and downplay the stuff I think is absurd? Baby steps. Religionists have no strategy or common sense when it comes to apologetics. You argue with me as if I believe in God and Satan.
Anyway, I've made these points so many times, and they just bounce off the framework of faith, just as your points bounce off my framework of reason. There will be no headway because our criteria for belief run so contrary. I think it's cool that you fight for what you believe in so passionately, and wish people wouldn't downvote your videos to the point that they are killed. I do think you could come up with more productive styles of argument.
I'd be curious to get your opinion on this video: http://videosift.com/video/Why-I-am-no-longer-a-Christian-Must-Watch

No matter what you think about vaccinations, this piece was a meaningless attack piece. On the one side, grieving parents who cry and say how sad they are while saying nothing authoritative about vaccines, and on the other side, two wingnuts who are fervent and dogmatic, and not necessarily representative of the anti-vaccine lobby as a whole. I have worked with activist organizations, and they sure can attract weirdos, but it doesn't invalidate the issue itself.

Very disappointing for 60 Minutes. It's the same style as the CBC piece on homeopathy.

To be clear, I'm knocking the style of this piece because it removes credibility from anything presented. An opinionated journalist can make any opinion convincing.

>> ^Longswd:

British Doctor Faked Data Linking Vaccines to Autism, and Aimed to Profit From It
I only have one thing to say to people who directly trade the lives of children for profit - Bowels in or bowels out?


Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts

Dr Wakefield demands retraction from BMJ after documents prove innocence from allegations of vaccine autism data fraud

Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield about the British Medical Journal, science and vaccines (Part 1)

Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield - the structure of scientific revolutions (Part 2)

Edit:
Dr Wakefield:
"Will the mainstream media now take this real story, the real facts, and actually do their job as journalists and report the facts? Will they report the truth? I doubt it. Why? Because they're owned. Their salaries are paid, albeit indirectly, in large part by pharmaceutical revenues. And the first thing that will happen when they try and do a story which deconstructs these arguments, the BMJ's arguments, and actually reconstructs them in light of the truth, [is that] there will be a call from their advertisers, saying [no]. So what will the mainstream media do? Will it live up to its job, its duty to the people to report the truth, or will it show complete disinterest? Anderson Cooper has been presented with the same nine questions. What was your story based upon? Show us the facts. Did you do your homework? Now are you going to pay similar attention to these documented historical facts? We shall see."

>> ^blankfist:


But some people like trolling for trolling's sake. Nothing wrong with it, IMO. Bullying, maybe that's different, but everyone has a different perspective on what that is. I've seen firsthand what I think is bullying when you, dft and three or four other likeminded people get together to deconstruct my belief system. And more often than not those conversations turn to attacking me instead of my arguments. I'm called blankfuck, libertard and everything else.

Well, that's why I like your suggested rule so much. If you feel bullied, and want people to stop, ask them to stop. If they persist, we'll send them to bed without supper Videosift.

Likewise, if people feel like you referring to their concerns as a "vagina monologue" is bullying, they should be able to ask you to stop, and if you persist anyways, then it's you going to bed without Videosift.

>> ^blankfist:

But I'm a big boy, and I have to find ways to make peace with that or else leave the site. So, if I do think people are engaging in a super light version of the Stanford Prison Experiment, I tend to say something to them. And that tends to lighten the situation almost immediately.
I like to debate. Often I play too much and it's read as bullying, though if you knew me personally you'd know I'm a huge ball breaker but nothing inside of me is capable of sincere bullying. Not in a genuine mean way.
And it's "draconian" not "dragon". But I like the sound of a clockwork dragon utopia.


I don't think you ever set out to bully people, but I can definitely see how you could come across that way to someone who doesn't know you from Adam. Same with me.

Oh, and I know the difference between draconian and dragon, but I have a creative license, and I'm not afraid to use it! Especially on a word with such a nice Latin root!

Like I said before, I have no desire to see this place become overly burdened with propriety rules, but I also don't want people to feel like they have no recourse but to suck it up, or leave the site when it comes to verbal abuse. We can do better than that.

We all see things through the deforming prism of our own minds. To some, bullying is the deconstruction of political philosophy. To others it's ball busting. To others it's the use of invective like libertard or statist. To others it's gossip and shit talk. To others it's the casual use of sexist or racist humor.

>> ^NetRunner:
I don't want the site to be tedious either! I want the rules to allow for prurient humor, us lovingly referring to each other as pigfucker in public, and for us to be able to throw an elbow or two in a passionate discussion.
But at the same time, I don't want people to have free reign to act like bullies, or just troll for trolling's sake. I think comments that contain nothing but a personal attack are bad for the community generally. I don't want to feed the people who post them to clockwork dragons, but I do think they should get some sort of feedback from some sort of authority that what they're doing isn't welcome.
And incidentally, friendly clockwork dragons are totally a part of my utopia.


But some people like trolling for trolling's sake. Nothing wrong with it, IMO. Bullying, maybe that's different, but everyone has a different perspective on what that is. I've seen firsthand what I think is bullying when you, dft and three or four other likeminded people get together to deconstruct my belief system. And more often than not those conversations turn to attacking me instead of my arguments. I'm called blankfuck, libertard and everything else.

But I'm a big boy, and I have to find ways to make peace with that or else leave the site. So, if I do think people are engaging in a super light version of the Stanford Prison Experiment, I tend to say something to them. And that tends to lighten the situation almost immediately.

I like to debate. Often I play too much and it's read as bullying, though if you knew me personally you'd know I'm a huge ball breaker but nothing inside of me is capable of sincere bullying. Not in a genuine mean way.

And it's "draconian" not "dragon". But I like the sound of a clockwork dragon utopia.

Oh dear! It appears to have gone dead in that last few minutes!

I'm not calling dead though -- because it is, well, weird to promote a dead video. So there is something fitting about it. @Fusionaut, you are deconstructing the sift!

Poor Ray sounded pretty defeated by the end after that thorough deconstruction of every single one of his arguments by Matt. Man, I wish I could debate like that guy!

Go eat a banana Ray, you'll feel better.

The fact that women can think for themselves and not be effected negatively does not negate the problem that we allow and passively encourage the distortion and objectification of men/women in our media, nor does standing against that suggest you feel all men/women are stupid.

I don't think she's a particular good speaker and I find her strenuous link to violence rather baseless. Though no one was really deconstructing her views with any thought, it just went straight to "feminist!" as if it was wrong to be one.

>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^yellowc:
Look can you stop associating "feminism" with bad/crazy/bitch/whatever other bullshit you want to sprout, it's getting old. First of all, she is completely level-headed and talking in a clear and concise manner, she didn't belittle the models choice of career, she isn't ranting, she didn't do anything to deserve your "feminist" comments.
All you see is a women talking and instantly turned to hate. Ridiculous.
Also you men who think you're amazing for being a man with no influential problems of this nature. When was the last time you cried publicly or even cried? Guess why you don't? Guess why you don't talk to your mates about your problems? You've had "be a man" drilled in to your head since birth...guess what you're a product of.
Disclaimer: I'm a male, I'm also a feminist.

The fact that she's got these people's attention with this self-important non-issue is annoying. The undertones are simply: She thinks women are dumb enough to be affected negatively by these obviously distorted ideas of beauty.
If you think this way too then you're no feminist. You're pandering to women as if they're dumb pets that can't think for themselves.