Thanks @NetRunner, that's exactly what i asked for. I wouldn't say the email shows dishonesty, but it's not common to get a decent reply like that when dealing with political comments on here

@aurens: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/others/RayJan07.html




Your copied original text: Another argument commonly used in healthcare-policy debates is that there are almost 46 million people who have no health insurance at all. Again, this is not a problem in and of itself. According to the National Health Interview Survey, 40 percent of those uninsured are less than 35 years old, while approximately 20 percent earn over $75,000 a year. In other words, a large fraction of those who are uninsured can afford insurance but choose not to buy it or are healthy enough that they don’t really need it (beyond, perhaps, catastrophic coverage).

My paraphrase: "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance."

The poor: 40% - of the uninsured NEED healthcare, as do the 40% young. That's 80% of the uninsured who cannot afford healtcare and need it. Even if you cut the (free-market) cost an assload, it will still be too expensive for many. Therefore, the federal state that is there to protect their lives should provide the healthcare needed. It is not intellectual dishonesty. Healthcare is a right, at least in every industrialised country except the USA. Just because some guy says it isn't, doesn't make it so.


Can you reallistically tell me how poor people without jobs will be provided with food, healthcare and housing without their government providing if they live in small, poor village in the middle of the USA?

3. My answer is meant to show that your question is laden with faulty assumptions. (Your initial post is a textbook example of begging the question.) But, again, to humor you, I'll address what would happen without farming subsidies in the United States: (a) Americans would eat more healthfully; (b) no, farming would not become unprofitable (except maybe for the huge corporations who wastefully produce the once-subsidized products, namely corn); (c) the average percentage of income spent on food might go up, though it wouldn't necessarily cut "heavily into the income of poorer people."

By the way: farming is profitable for many farmers, and to suggest that it isn't ("would it become profitable again") is misleading.


2. I'll spell it out for you: I choose not to address it. There are legitimate arguments to be made in favor of labor laws. To suggest that, in their absence, people would be "fired on a whim" is not one of them, and it relegates this conversation to something unworthy of my time.


1. The point of the link was to show, without engaging with your assumption-laden imaginative dystopia, that there are many defensible positions for those who question the wisdom and necessity of antitrust laws.


4. "That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance."

That's worse than a bad paraphrase; it's intellectual dishonesty. You and I gain nothing from this kind of conversation if we interpret information with that strong a bias. Read it again and see if you can't come up with a more intellectually honest response:


"A common argument advanced in support of greater government intervention in the American healthcare market is that a large and growing fraction of the gross domestic product (GDP) is spent on healthcare, while the results, such as average life expectancy, do not compare favorably to the Western nations that have adopted some form of universal healthcare.

This argument is spurious for two reasons:

A growing fraction of GDP spent on healthcare is not a problem per se. In the early half of the twentieth century, the fraction of GDP spent on healthcare grew significantly as new treatments, medical technology, and drugs became available. Growth in spending of this nature is desirable if it satisfies consumer preferences.

Attributing national-health results to the healthcare system adopted by different countries confuses correlation with causation and ignores the many salient variables that are causal factors affecting aggregate statistics (such as average life expectancy). Factors that are likely to be at least as important as the healthcare system include the dietary and exercise preferences of a population.

Another argument commonly used in healthcare-policy debates is that there are almost 46 million people who have no health insurance at all. Again, this is not a problem in and of itself. According to the National Health Interview Survey, 40 percent of those uninsured are less than 35 years old, while approximately 20 percent earn over $75,000 a year. In other words, a large fraction of those who are uninsured can afford insurance but choose not to buy it or are healthy enough that they don’t really need it (beyond, perhaps, catastrophic coverage). The real problem with the American healthcare system is that prices are continually rising, greatly outpacing the rate of inflation, making healthcare unaffordable to an ever-increasing fraction of the population—particularly those without insurance.

If prices in the healthcare market were falling, as they are in other markets such as computers and electronics, the large number of uninsured would be of little concern. Treatments, drugs, and medical technology would become more affordable over time, allowing patients to pay directly for them. Identifying the cause of rising healthcare costs should be the first priority for anyone who seeks solutions to America’s broken healthcare system."


Again, the full article: http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Of course the post is highly speculative ...

Honesty has nothing to do with morals at all. If he attacks the left, and believes the programs are doomed to fail, then that is his preference. If I tell a woman, "Your children are fat, stupid and selfish," she will flip out--even if done nicely. Even if done to save the child's life and give the child a chance.

Honesty is a cruel thing, but is necessary. Ron Paul is honest, even when he doesn't know he is being honest (Which annoys me.)

America will burn as a nation so long as we remain overweight (You can buy soda with food stamps...lovely huh?) We will burn as long as we promote confidence over humility. We will burn as long as we think 9/11 just magically fucking happened. As long as we prop up corporations with corporate-friendly laws. As long as we think we deserve something for nothing. Our culture is useless and will falter, regardless of stimulus, universal healthcare, welfare, WIC, Unemployment insurance, etc. I favor most of these programs for the needy, but then in this culture it does not good, does it? Because we are entitled and greedy.

Paul admits to these--even if every other politician is to busy sucking every Americans cocks and teats to admit it.

Also, Paul supports liberal causes, just in personal choice. This is not dishonest; perhaps stupidity, but not dishonesty.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?

Working backwards:

1. Paul isn't honest.
   
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.
   
3. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks Stewart is "honest" because he attacks the Democrats, which apparently Paul thinks is rare for the left to do.
   
4. Paul's "respect" for this "honesty" is further amplified by the fact that Stewart gives him a platform to spread his ideology unchallenged to a new audience.
   
5. Paul has the same "respect" for Kucinich -- Kucinich often attacks the Democrats from the left, and therefore Paul has "respect" for Kucinich's "honesty."
   

Monday, August 15. 2011

Nero in the White House
By Mychal Massie

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?

Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

It's not about the downvote, it is simply about the dishonesty in saying that he is somehow being impartial with me. What further test do I need beyond the public displays of affection? As far as what I should or shouldn't be doing here, you have plenty of people providing the duck baby videos you intelligent and well educated people are clamouring for. If I ever get a star I am sure it will be by accident, and that is just fine with me.

>> ^shuac:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You're on record for saying you don't like me, anything I have to say, and you think everything I submit is garbage..you've said it again in this video..or the fact that 95 percent of videos I've submitted here have an HPQP downvote, or that you've openly stated that I should be publically ridiculed and ignored. I think that's evidence for a bias. Are you this openly hostile and unsupportive to any other member? I very much doubt it. If you want to tag along, I really don't care..I just think your behavior is extremely petty and juvenile.
>> ^hpqp:
So I say you're right and this is how you thank me?
I've told @marinara and I'll tell you: I downvote videos whose content and/or form I do not like, and the religion channel is my favourite haunt (i.e. I watch all the vids posted therein). It just so happens that your posts are always in that channel, and practically always atrocious.
But if it rubs your ego the right why to think I stalk you, feel free, (but beware or my VS sweetheart @Yogi -bear might become jealous).
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sniping at me from the peanut gallery yet again, are you? Please come down from the balcony, Waldorf. Instead of stalking me and downvoting all of my videos, perhaps you could actually contribute something for once.
>> ^hpqp:
You're wasting your time @Skeeve, you'll get more out of arguing with a pile of sun-bleached dog poo than with the poster of this video... but you probably know that already.
@enoch I'm afraid shiny's right about original sin: Jeebs' whole skit is completely meaningless without it.




Now, now shiny-hiney: hpqp never said he didn't like you (in this thread) so please be accurate. Do not claim things that are demonstrably false. That's what got the intelligent design folks in such a pickle.
I also think your videos are garbage but I don't downvote them, usually. I don't downvote hardly anything except those horrid Hitler Downfall parody videos: I have a strong bias against them (much to the dismay of my fellow sifters) because I think they are bereft of wit and humor.
People are free to downvote anything they like, so long as they have a bronze star or higher. Now if you ever deigned to take my advice and post a baby ducks video or the odd sleepy puppy video now and again, you'll eventually get a bronze star too and gain the ability to downvote...which I encourage you to do. But you'll never get there insisting on taking the role of Reverend Shiny preaching some bronze-age, self-righteous piddle to a group as intelligent and well-educated as us. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
I'll bet if you made an attempt to sift baby ducks or sleepy puppies, we could test whether hpqp was genuinely biased but the way you're going...how can we? See the dilemma?
In short: Mix it up, son.

It's rampant in politics, from all sides. I wish people would consider the context of a statement and report it truthfully. "I only hear what I want to hear," is intellectual dishonesty. Although he may have done it in some speech/debate, I have never heard Romney speak to the legal issue of corporate personhood. What he has said in Iowa is absolutely, undeniably correct........you increase taxes on corporations, it affects someone's paycheck, either an employee/owner, or the cost of the goods/services provided by the corporation, and therefore the consumer. Without fundamental change in the ridiculous recommendations of compensation committees of large corporations (regarding salaries for high level management), the extra cost will be deflected downstream to lower grade employees, or consumers like you and I. High level management is insulated from decreases in revenue from increased corporate taxes. If they do sense a threat, they'll just move their headquarters overseas to a more favorite tax environment. Ask Bono and U2 how that works.

Look at that comment a little closer and see if you see any problems in logic.

-blankfist does not like the information in the article I posted.
-He cannot find any evidence to suggest that the damning information is false.
-He then tries to discredit the article on the basis that the site it was posted on has a political bias.

Do you see the dishonesty of this argument?

FOX NEWS uses this very same 'balance' fallacy constantly.

I stand behind the downvote.
>> ^chilaxe:

@dystopianfuturetoday @Ryjkyj @DerHasisttot
It doesn't seem right to downvote honest discussion. In particular, the downvoting of @blankfist 's seemingly appropriate criticism of sourcewatch.org's neutrality seems out of place.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Did I ever say that they would "successfully sue the city?" No. I did point out that lawsuits happen all the time. My mother was sued like 14 times, in different states, and the woman suing was broke. Suffice to say that drained my mom and she could do nothing about it until she payed a hell of a lot of money for a powerhouse lawyer (Which fucked her further.)
Just because the suits fail doesn't mean they don't do damage Yogi--and that was my point. So intellectual dishonesty my ass.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Sad part is--the city would be sued if someone fell off. Not a matter of if, but a matter of when
But to the actual content, why, oh why, do people feel the need to keep talking when they obviously don't know what they are talking about.

WHY!? I don't understand how you can possibly sue the city for something YOU Fucking did! It's like like they shoddily put up two trees that fell on your dumb ass. Either America is more litigious than I think, or the law doesn't work the way you think.

Yes, America is more litigious than you think. Because the law does work the way I think. Take a few cases...
Um, the woman spills HOT coffee on vag, sues McDonald's and wins. Yes, the coffee was hot even for coffee, but that's not the point.
Oh, and the doctor/rapist who sued because the hospital did not protect him or the victim from his attack? Yeah, that was a worthwhile lawsuit. Ultimately the case was thrown out, but I wonder who has to pay (Hint, if he is broke, the hospital. And the taxpayers.)
Lastly, in Michigan, a man got into a fender-bender. He claimed he turned gay because of it, won 200K, then his ex-wife sued, and won 25K...
A man became fat on McDonald's. Since he was manager, he sued because he "had" to sample the menu to ensure freshness. This wasn't in America, but guess what? He won.

I'm sorry but these stories are bullshit unless you compare them to the bullshit lawsuits that got thrown out because of how stupid they are. Coming up with a bunch of stories where stupid lawsuits succeeded is like using Casey Anthony as an example that anyone can get away with murdering their child. It's just not intellectually honest.



14 Times...Your mom deserved it...kill yourself mother fucker.

Did I ever say that they would "successfully sue the city?" No. I did point out that lawsuits happen all the time. My mother was sued like 14 times, in different states, and the woman suing was broke. Suffice to say that drained my mom and she could do nothing about it until she payed a hell of a lot of money for a powerhouse lawyer (Which fucked her further.)

Just because the suits fail doesn't mean they don't do damage Yogi--and that was my point. So intellectual dishonesty my ass.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Sad part is--the city would be sued if someone fell off. Not a matter of if, but a matter of when
But to the actual content, why, oh why, do people feel the need to keep talking when they obviously don't know what they are talking about.

WHY!? I don't understand how you can possibly sue the city for something YOU Fucking did! It's like like they shoddily put up two trees that fell on your dumb ass. Either America is more litigious than I think, or the law doesn't work the way you think.

Yes, America is more litigious than you think. Because the law does work the way I think. Take a few cases...
Um, the woman spills HOT coffee on vag, sues McDonald's and wins. Yes, the coffee was hot even for coffee, but that's not the point.
Oh, and the doctor/rapist who sued because the hospital did not protect him or the victim from his attack? Yeah, that was a worthwhile lawsuit. Ultimately the case was thrown out, but I wonder who has to pay (Hint, if he is broke, the hospital. And the taxpayers.)
Lastly, in Michigan, a man got into a fender-bender. He claimed he turned gay because of it, won 200K, then his ex-wife sued, and won 25K...
A man became fat on McDonald's. Since he was manager, he sued because he "had" to sample the menu to ensure freshness. This wasn't in America, but guess what? He won.

I'm sorry but these stories are bullshit unless you compare them to the bullshit lawsuits that got thrown out because of how stupid they are. Coming up with a bunch of stories where stupid lawsuits succeeded is like using Casey Anthony as an example that anyone can get away with murdering their child. It's just not intellectually honest.

>> ^rougy:

In sincerely believe that you don't really want to know what "progressive" means, GSF.
You just want to feign ignorance so you can nitpick at the things you're opposed to.


Believe what you want sir, but I despise dishonesty. I am many things unpleasant, but I don't feign ignorance, if anything I am overly pridefull. I actually attack my own beliefs more than others; usually starting at the position that I am wrong. And while I may not believe in progressive ideals, that doesn't mean I don't care to know what mindset goes behind them. I am not a demagogic monster. I actually do care.

In that, I will have to get back to you @NetRunner as your have a wall of text that I appreciate but can't digest currently (burb). Live long and prosper!

The transcription is from a different message. Here's the right one:

Greetings, members of NATO. We are Anonymous.

In a recent publication, you have singled out Anonymous as a threat to „government and the people“. You have also alleged that secrecy is a ‘necessary evil’ and that transparency is npt always the right way forward.

Anonymous would like to remind you that the government and the people are, contrary to the supposed foundations of „democracy“, distinct entities with often conflicting goals and desires. It is Anonymous’ position that when there is a conflict of interest between the government and the people, it is the people’s will which must take priority. The only threat transparency poses to government is to threaten government’s ability to act in a manner which the people would disagree with, without having to face democratic consequences and accountability for such behaviour. Your own report cites a perfect example of this, the Anonymous attack on HBGary. Whether HBGary were acting in the cause of security or military gain is irrelevant – their actions were illegal and morally reprehensible. Anonymous does not accept that the government and/or the military has the right to be above the law and to use the phoney cliche of „national security“ to justify illegal and deceptive activities. If the government must break the rules, they must also be willing to accept the democratic consequences of this at the ballot box.We do not accept the current status quo whereby a government can tell one story to the people and another in private. Dishonesty and secrecy totally undermine the concept of self rule. How can the people judge for whom to vote unless they are fully aware of what policies said politicians are actually pursuing?

When a government is elected, it is said to „represent“ the nation it governs. This essentially means that the actions of a government are not the actions of the people in government, but are actions taken on behalf of every citizen in that country. It is unacceptable to have a situation in which the people are, in many cases, totally and utterly unaware of what is being said and done on their behalf – behind closed doors.

Anonymous and WikiLeaks are distinct entities. The actions of Anonymous were not aided or even requested by WikiLeaks. However, Anonymous and WikiLeaks do share one common attribute: They are no threat to any organization – unless that organization is doing something wrong and attempting to get away with it.

We do not wish to threaten anybody’s way of life. We do not wish to dictate anything to anybody. We do not wish to terrorize any nation.

We merely wish to remove power from vested interests and return it to the people – who, in a democracy, it should never have been taken from in the first place.
The government makes the law. This does not give them the right to break it. If the government was doing nothing underhand or illegal, there would be nothing „embarassing“ about Wikileaks revelations, nor would there have been any scandal emanating from HBGary. The resulting scandals were not a result of Anonymous’ or Wikileaks’ revelations, they were the result of the CONTENT of those revelations. And responsibility for that content can be laid solely at the doorstep of policymakers who, like any corrupt entity, naively believed that they were above the law and that they would not be caught.

A lot of government and corporate comment has been dedicated to „how we can avoid a similar leak in the future“. Such advice ranges from better security, to lower levels of clearance, from harsher penalties for whistleblowers, to censorship of the press.

Our message is simple: Do not lie to the people and you won’t have to worry about your lies being exposed. Do not make corrupt deals and you won’t have to worry about your corruption being laid bare. Do not break the rules and you won’t have to worry about getting in trouble for it.

Do not attempt to repair your two faces by concealing one of them. Instead, try having only one face – an honest, open and democratic one.

You know you do not fear us because we are a threat to society. You fear us because we are a threat to the established hierarchy. Anonymous has proven over the last several years that a hierarchy is not necessary in order to achieve great progress – perhaps what you truly fear in us, is the realization of your own irrelevance in an age which has outgrown its reliance on you. Your true terror is not in a collective of activists, but in the fact that you and everything you stand for have, by the changing tides and the advancement of technology, are now surplus to requirements.

Finally, do not make the mistake of challenging Anonymous. Do not make the mistake of believing you can behead a headless snake. If you slice off one head of Hydra, ten more heads will grow in its place. If you cut down one Anon, ten more will join us purely out of anger at your trampling of dissent.

Your only chance of defeating the movement which binds all of us is to accept it. This is no longer your world. It is our world – the people’s world.

We are Anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.

I have had tons of respect for Weiner, minus a few of his childish antics. But now...

1. How can sending someone a groin shot over the web be guaranteed as consensual? What if it turned out that what he thought was a 21 year old was actually a 13 year old girl pretending to be 21? If he was comfortable enough about his anonymity how could he know who he was dealing with?

2. Really? You are giving a man who has railed against dishonesty in politics and the media a pass on a knee jerk lie? Remember the true measure of a person is not in times of comfort but in times of stress. He almost might have been able to save himself if his first reaction was the truth.

3. Everything that a political figure does, professionally or personally, has something to do with their politics.

4. So do I.

5. Agreed, but this is not about his marital issues. His marital issues are as a result of his actions, they are not necessarily the cause of them.

6. Agreed. This alone invalidates him in his position and makes him hardly supportable now.

7. See numbers 3 and 6.

8. For me the issue is not the original screw up but instead it is the lie that immediately followed that is the problem. If his default reaction is to lie like a 5 year old to protect himself what does that say about him? Did he lie out of panic or did he actually for a moment think that he could fool everyone and get away with it? It is hard to trust a person who tells the truth only when there is no other option.

How can his antics be taken seriously now? He will be yoked with this for the rest of his political career.

>> ^peggedbea:

1. i don't give a shit what he does in his private life, as long as it is consensual.
2. i can totally see accidentally sending something embarrassing to the wrong place and then freaking out about it and making up some lie to cover it up, i'm pretty sure i've done it.
3. this has nothing to do with his politics
4. i like his politics
5. his marital issues are not my business
6. disappointing that he put himself in a position to be discredited for every valid thing he says from now on
7. stupid that political opponents and news outlets will tell america that who he jerks off with somehow discredits his work
8. i really really really don't care who beats off/screws whom as long as it is consensual. i wish the news would regain some class and keep peoples private lives private... even though he technically outed himself... still can we just do what my friends would do if i accidentally posted a dirty picture to my facebook and deleted it immediately and politely pretend it never ever happened???

Jerry Coyne watched this so you don't have to.

Also Professor Martin Brasier of Oxford, paleobiologist, points out a few of the films major mistakes.


Favourite comment from J. Coyne's blog: "It still bugles my mind how a young earth creationist can believe in the Cambrian explosion, but not the CAMBRIAN. The “designer” only knows to what depths their dishonesty will take them."

You're welcome I enjoy discussing it, and I'm sorry if some of my comments sounded too harsh or negative, I was basically commenting while watching and pausing the video. I do see how he was trying to tip the scales from god being totally improbable to somewhat probable and to very probable and so on, and I suppose he deserves some credit for trying, and I think its easy to fall into his line of reasoning, because he presents it well. But as I tried pointing out, I found nearly all of his premises deeply flawed.

The main one is i think where we are coming from, namely that he lives in a universe where he basically assumes god exists, and that we atheists havent done a good enough job of disproving that. And worse, he seems unable to see the world from an atheists perspective. Thats the only way to explain why he thinks he's found a good solution to the problem of evil. Its a crappy solution. And its a solution that most atheists are familiar with. (ie: that god has a "larger plan" with all the evil stuff so its not really evil) As I said previously, assuming that there is no god at all, is a solution that's orders of magnitude more satisfying, because it erases the whole problem. Evil happens because the universe and the physical laws that govern it are completely indifferent to human or animal suffering, and humans, altho sometimes brilliant, are basically powerhungry tribal apes with guns and religion at their disposal, and some of them even have pretty much defective brains, lacking our usual specter of emotions, for example.

All that makes sense in a godless universe, where our hardearned human rights also makes sense, not just that we have them, but that it took thousands of years and thousands of wars before we figured we might need them. It also explains why some still dont believe in them.

>> ^enoch:

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
that being said,dont you find the absence of dogmatic speak refreshing?
Yes.
i would think an atheist at least could appreciate this type of conversation.
he is not preachy in this talk,nor is he attempting to convert or convince.
No but it does have a smell of dishonesty about it. He's constantly calling out the atheists for unreasonably demanding that he prove the existence of god, which he then freely admits he cant do, as a sign op a kind of opendmindeness, while subtly making that very same silly demand in return "You cant prove there is no god!"
which god are you speaking of.
a pantheon of deities?
judau-christian?
or any other of the 4500 religions?
Again, this isnt really my problem here: I'm not the one making shit up about elusive, invisible metaphysical overlords. I'm saying there is no evidence.

agreed.
thats why i do not attempt to "prove" the existence of a creator.
to do so would be futile.
but he is making the point..the crux in the argument in my opinion,of the dynamic of proof.
i have had many atheists demand this of me also.
as if it were my job to somehow convince them.
which is is not, but i also do not put myself in a position where i have to i.e: making claims of the certitude of a creator etc etc.
everybody has their own path and come to their own conclusions based on their own subjective realty.
faith is personal while religion is not (though they claim it is..and often).
anyways i thought this was pretty good concerning that very argument and truly felt it was worthy for even an theist to be able to at least understand a person of faiths viewpoint in a non-dogmatic way.
seems i was wrong.
meh.../shrugs.
thanks for replying BRM.
very awesome of you.