>> ^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.

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 openmindeness, 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.

Ayn Rand was absolutely terrible.
Intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

Look, the problem is not that there is a different opinion out there, the problem is that FOX is not, as it were just a different opinion, its a network of dishonesty. Its lying and distorting facts, it denies and undercuts reality itself, All while claiming to be the "fair and balanced" alternative.

This kind of opinion can only be aimed at the FOX commentary side of the equation such as Beck, Hannity, et al. It does not apply to the "news" side. Most cable news programs have a distinct division between "News" (updates of current events) and "Commentary" (talking head opinion programs). I have seen nothing in FOX News' "news" that in any way is described by your litany of grievances. The only stuff that fits your description is the "commentary" side.

But talking about OPINION programs as "dishonesty, distortion, denial, undercutting reality", belies the nature of what you are implying. You are implying their NEWS lies, distorts, denies - when in reality you are grumping at COMMENTARY that (based on your bias) you interpret as lies, distorts, and denies. Must you not freely acknowledge that MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, AP, USA Today, and innumerable other news outlets are equal violators in that regard? How is the foaming commentary of Chris Matthews any better than Sean Hannity? How are the inane distortions and exaggerations of Beck any different than Maddow's?

FOX didn't start the birther movement. That started because Obama first refused to release his birth certificate, and then Hawaii refused to release it, and then they released a digitized copy, and finally released a document that does not necessarily rule out the possibility of being foreign born. FOX News didn't do all that. And the whole East Anglia corruption scandal is not FOX News' fault. Again, I only see this as you complaining that an critical voice is applying some strict standards of accountability to an organization that your personal bias prefers being given a free pass to lie. It isn't dishonesty - it is a rare application of journalistic standars to an otherwise unaccountable group caught red-handed cooking their books.

Try finding comparable examples on Olberman or Maddow, you wont. Because while they are opinionated, biased and crtical, they also care about the facts

Bullcrap. Madddow & Olbermann prove they are only interested in left-leaning slant every time they open their mouths and flap their yaps. Someone with a right-leaning slant will say the exact thing about Beck or Hannity and you cannot argue the point because they are using your same logic. They can say that Beck 'cares about facts' too - as long as they reinforce his position. Maddow cares about facts - if they make her opinions look good. Neither of them tell the whole story, and both of them deliberately hide facts that contradict their narratives.

What you claim is 'craziness' is merely your own mental unhappiness over the existence of a dissenting perspective in a cable news universe that is otherwise homogenously oriented towards slavishly mirroring your own personal bias. Quite literally, FOX is a fly in your ideological ointment and its existence irks you. Rather than seek to dismiss it, you should welcome it as a much needed counterbalance to a milquetoast news industry that all too often does nothing but circle-jerk around a single opinion.


Look, the problem is not that there is a different opinion out there, the problem is that FOX is not, as it were just a different opinion, its a network of dishonesty. Its lying and distorting facts, it denies and undercuts reality itself, All while claiming to be the "fair and balanced" alternative. This isnt about right or left "perspectives" but about basic journalistic integrity, and basic respect for the truth. We see it again and again, FOX spews out some insinuating shit, and then gets debunked by other networks, but instead of acknowldging their mistakes and take steps to correct them, they keep up their lies.

FOX , for example, started the birther movement, the "Obama is a muslim" movement, and the tea party(based on the fictional idea that the original tea-party opposed taxes. They didnt, they opposed taxes to a foreign country). In addition, they keep fuelling lies about global warming ie: "climategate" consisting of a few misunderstood emails between scientists. This isnt journalism, this isnt "opposing views" this is dishonesty. and if it happened once or twice, you could blame sloppiness or mistakes, or maybe a biased reporter or two, but with FOX it is symptomatic and systematic.

Try finding comparable examples on Olberman or Maddow, you wont. Because while they are opinionated, biased and crtical, they also care about the facts, they actually try to put things in its proper contexts and strive for honesty.

This is my last comment on this video as it is getting old, but I just can't resist.

You want my definition of a rant? Ok, "to speak or declaim extravagantly or vehemently." As the point of your comment was to declaim James Randi, and you did it in a rather bombastic way, I stand by my statement.

Maybe I should also define something else you don't seem to understand:
monotone - a vocal utterance or series of speech sounds in one unvaried tone. Maybe you are tone-deaf, but Randi wasn't even close to monotone in this video. Monotone is how Ben Stein speaks - it tends to be pretty obvious.

Is Randi condescending? At times, but only to those who deserve our condescension. The purveyors of this shit deserve our complete derision.

Now, I would like to know how, from this one video, you decided that Randi believes that the only people at fault are the corporations. He has made a living teaching people to be skeptical and to question the paranormal and pseudo-scientific. He has made it clear that, while most of the fault lies in the dishonesty of the people who push the scams like homeopathy, applied kinesiology, psychic phenomena, etc., people need to be more skeptical and should resist these scammers.

This video was specifically produced to announce his new million dollar challenge to homeopathy manufacturers and his challenge to the sellers of homeopathic remedies so of course he talks more about corporations in this video.

Yes, boycotts would force these companies to stop selling this garbage but to bring that about you need publicity and a million dollar challenge is a good way to get that publicity. Though it would be even better, IMO, if our health and drug organizations (FDA etc.) didn't allow manufacturers to trick people into thinking water was medicine.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I could type a big response to your response...but it's so messed up I'm not even sure you read my response.
Btw, what is your definition of a rant? Mine is to ramble on over the same point without adding significant clarification (i.e. the clarification that I added.)
Here is the abridged version, since reading is not fun for you. Randi blames corporations because he is either ignorant or a suck-up, I blame the people using the medications and the corporations.
^Skeeve:
I could type a big response to your rant... but it's so messed up I'm not even sure you watched the same video.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Skeeve:
beg
Come on, every other homeopathy video and every other James Randi video is sifted. I figured this was a shoe in.

I voted for the video just now, but the Randi is monotone, condesending, and wrong in many areas--that may have something to do with the poor votes.
I don't disagree that the psedo medicine is fake--in fact I agree. However... "Its not just manafacturer's faults, but Walgreens, etc." Yeah, fuck face, its also the people who buy this shit at fault! Or the parents who trust this shit. But he won't blame the real problems, because that is unpopular, he blames the corporations because every one hates those! "Innocent people suffer." Well, what is the subjective meaning of "innocent?" If he means people who self inflict pain on themselves, he's right...if users boycotted this water shit, then the companies would go bankrupt! Boycotts are the consumer vote...
This feel-good idiot blame-monster is just like a politician... "Scapegoat time!" 'You have to protect yourself." Oh, he get's to that by the end Great science guy--bad philosophy. Maybe I am too anal, but then, I am tired of this "homopathetic displaced blame" water...

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The function of over-the-top personalities like Coulter and Limbaugh is to make the slightly less over-the-top rhetoric of FOX seem more objective and reasonable. I wonder if liberals would do better if they had their own Coulters, Becks and Limbaughs? Probably not. Air America (a liberal analog to right wing talk radio) did not attract enough liberal listeners to stay afloat. As phony as Air America was, it didn't approach the level of dishonesty you find in right wing talk radio or on FOX news. I think liberals prefer more intellectual sources of information, like NPR, PBS and print media.


Air America sucked because it just wasn't funny or fun to listen to. No Rush Limbaugh isn't that funny really...he's more annoying. Sean Hannity though...he's damn good at what he does and he's funny, I could have a genuine funny conversation with him without stabbing him in the eyes. I tried with Air America...Liberals aren't funny when they're scolding people.

The function of over-the-top personalities like Coulter and Limbaugh is to make the slightly less over-the-top rhetoric of FOX seem more objective and reasonable. I wonder if liberals would do better if they had their own Coulters, Becks and Limbaughs? Probably not. Air America (a liberal analog to right wing talk radio) did not attract enough liberal listeners to stay afloat. As phony as Air America was, it didn't approach the level of dishonesty you find in right wing talk radio or on FOX news. I think liberals prefer more intellectual sources of information, like NPR, PBS and print media.

I'm glad to see you're so unabashedly cocksure of your world views you've taken it upon yourself to point out the "rhetorical dishonesty" of others as measured by your inerrant yardstick of political insight and genius. And when you've humbly failed at this modest task, you've been more than gracious to take it upon yourself to teach those like me of our errors by converting our misguided comments into MadLibs.

Don't give up on us, dear lord, for we know not what we do.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I seem to make little headway pointing out blankfist's rhetorical dishonesty, so this time I'm going to turn his own words against him.

First, blankfist is a staunch freemarketologist. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's important to note when considering the source of the above comment. Not sure why blankfist is posting it here as if it was anything but a biased comment.

I seem to make little headway pointing out blankfist's rhetorical dishonesty, so this time I'm going to turn his own words against him. I'm sure, as always, he'll find some way to rationalize it. Still, it will be fun to see exactly how this artifice will play out in words, assuming he has the stones to respond at all.

You're taking what I said wayyyyyyy out of context. I said it was typical of sensationalized Internet media to take something and make it far worse than it actually is/was. I do not and will not consider what happened in that video to be stomping on someones head, but as proven here, that can be argued. I do, however, feel it was out of line and the people responsible should be investigated.

This is why it's nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation with people these days. You can say whatever you want, and that's that. Nothing is open for discussion or disagreement anymore.

Objective fact? She wasn't curb stomped nor was her head stomped on, at all. Saying so, and claiming that to be the case and calling it objective fact is a lie. I could agree with you if you said someone stepped on her neck, but stomped? No.

Objective judgment? Possibly. It is of my judgment that they went too far in what they did to her. That said, at least I'm honest about my objective judgment and am willing to admit that's what it is. I suppose others could say they didn't go far enough in what they did to her, which would make my opinion on this a judgment call.

In the end, what I said makes you mad? You got mad at me because you disagree with my opinion that I consider what actually went down versus how you titled it to be sensationalized? That's truly sad. I thought better of you, but I guess you're like the typical majority of Internet opinion makers -- if I disagree with you, you get mad at me for it. Oh well.

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hPOD" title="member since August 6th, 2010" class="profilelink">hPOD ahh, so instead of titling it with objective fact, I should title it with subjective judgment?
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK, umm, my title should be funny? I think "roughs up" is inaccurate (I usually think of that as involving multiple strikes), I think "assaults" has a legal connotation, I think "pushes down" isn't what all the fuss is about, and you're the one bringing up crazy things that didn't happen (rape & murder).
To both of you, just google Lauren Valle, and look at the press headlines describing this event. Most include the word "stomp", including the current embed from the Associated Press. The ones that don't aren't really any less inflammatory. Many use the verb "attacked", one said "brutally attacked", another said "kicked in the head", and a student newspaper even called it "A Crack of the Skull 'Heard Around the World'".
The most mild I've seen is "stepped on" her head, but I'd say that implies that it was unintentional, and it clearly was no accident.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
With alllll that being said, what happened here was completely shitty. I almost hate that the title is so much of an issue more than what has actually happened.

Here's what really makes me mad, at both you and hPOD, frankly. You are the ones making a federal case out of the word choice in my title, rather than focusing on the act itself.
You are the ones who feel you need to come and express concern for my immortal soul because of the horrors of my base and vile dishonesty -- in copying my fucking title from a professional news outlet that was being more fastidious about its facts than most.
Condemn the guy who stomped on the woman's head, not me for calling it a stomp.

@hPOD ahh, so instead of titling it with objective fact, I should title it with subjective judgment?

@GeeSussFreeK, umm, my title should be funny? I think "roughs up" is inaccurate (I usually think of that as involving multiple strikes), I think "assaults" has a legal connotation, I think "pushes down" isn't what all the fuss is about, and you're the one bringing up crazy things that didn't happen (rape & murder).

To both of you, just google Lauren Valle, and look at the press headlines describing this event. Most include the word "stomp", including the current embed from the Associated Press. The ones that don't aren't really any less inflammatory. Many use the verb "attacked", one said "brutally attacked", another said "kicked in the head", and a student newspaper even called it "A Crack of the Skull 'Heard Around the World'".

The most mild I've seen is "stepped on" her head, but I'd say that implies that it was unintentional, and it clearly was no accident.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
With alllll that being said, what happened here was completely shitty. I almost hate that the title is so much of an issue more than what has actually happened.

Here's what really makes me mad, at both you and hPOD, frankly. You are the ones making a federal case out of the word choice in my title, rather than focusing on the act itself.

You are the ones who feel you need to come and express concern for my immortal soul because of the horrors of my base and vile dishonesty -- in copying my fucking title from a professional news outlet that was being more fastidious about its facts than most.

Condemn the guy who stomped on the woman's head, not me for calling it a stomp.

>> ^quantumushroom:

My point? I despise intellectual dishonesty, including Ratigan flummery ending in unfounded, TYPICAL charges of racism.

There just aren't many 21st-century Christians slaying homosexuals in the streets or committing "honor killings", while islam causes conflict wherever it spreads.
thereligionofpeace.com
muslims obey their "holy" book with its demands of endless war and conversion by the sword, just as they did in the 7th century. Since they won't change, they should be sent to live at Allah's house.

>> ^Matthu:

What's your point? The Bible says the following:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
No wars against the church tho eh'?



Just curious. Are you saying all muslims should be "sent to allah"?

>> ^quantumushroom:

My point? I despise intellectual dishonesty, including Ratigan flummery ending in unfounded, TYPICAL charges of racism.

There just aren't many 21st-century Christians slaying homosexuals in the streets or committing "honor killings", while islam causes conflict wherever it spreads.
thereligionofpeace.com
muslims obey their "holy" book with its demands of endless war and conversion by the sword, just as they did in the 7th century. Since they won't change, they should be sent to live at Allah's house.

>> ^Matthu:

What's your point? The Bible says the following:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
No wars against the church tho eh'?



1 Peter 3:15: "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."

My point? I despise intellectual dishonesty, including Ratigan flummery ending in unfounded, TYPICAL charges of racism.



There just aren't many 21st-century Christians slaying homosexuals in the streets or committing "honor killings", while islam causes conflict wherever it spreads.

thereligionofpeace.com

muslims obey their "holy" book with its demands of endless war and conversion by the sword, just as they did in the 7th century. Since they won't change, they should be sent to live at Allah's house.


>> ^Matthu:



What's your point? The Bible says the following:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
No wars against the church tho eh'?