The middle 30 seconds is such a fucking low-point. And this scene comes *after* this scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOtpeYERu9w

No relation to Spider-Man. Directed like some awful music video. Tobey Maguire has no rhythm and just looks uncomfortable and embarassed to me.

Or that our empathy is selectively reserved for the deserving few who meet a certain criteria. I don't have to select who I am going to feel something for..there is enough room to go around..


He is careful to make it very clear that that wasn't his point - I mean, listen again to what he says and I don't think you can possibly take that message away. He cares for people, he's just trying to help people imagine what it's like to listen to people who are ONLY concerned with themselves. People aren't universally and equally empathetic, and considering how complaints might sound to others is going to help many people in social situations. Haven't you met many people in your life who are perpetually blaming others and complaining about their problems? I sure have - and I've done it myself sometimes. And it usually isn't productive. Sure many people need help, maybe urgently, and there's nothing wrong with seeking help. But that can't be all you do - to build the kind of relationships that can be a support to you later, you need to show genuine interest in others. You will be a better person, a bigger person, and a more interesting person the more you show interest in others.

The key thing Stephan said here is that he finds himself less interesting than other people. This is because he has a few personality disorders and presumably they are embarassing to speak about.


No, it's because despite his problems he tries to show real interest in other people instead of focusing on himself. This is a very Christian ideal - kind of reminds me of Philippians 2:3 -

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves


Stephen has been very candid about his own problems and has gone out of his way to help others - take this letter as an example. It's a simple, beautiful thought from a man who is honestly making effort to help a stranger.

Now, sure, his thoughts are a bit of a mess in this video (he's not on a script and he rambles and isn't always perfectly clear) - but his overall point is plain and is something that would really help a lot of people out of self-centered ruts. And, as before, I think focusing on others is a very Christian thing to do - coming in, I would have expected you to applaud this kind of thing.

Yes, I agree that people who endlessly talk about themselves and their problems burden everyone around them with their emotional baggage. I don't agree that we should go around smiling for everyone and pretend we don't have any problems, because others might find it boring. Or that our empathy is selectively reserved for the deserving few who meet a certain criteria. I don't have to select who I am going to feel something for..there is enough room to go around.. The key thing Stephan said here is that he finds himself less interesting than other people. This is because he has a few personality disorders and presumably they are embarassing to speak about. You're not a hero for suffering in silence, as I suppose Stephan is. It's better to get it out so you might better reflect upon it, and maybe you'll help someone else out in the process.

Oh god it reaches a whole new level of embarassingly awful.

People need to have their assholishness thrown in their faces a little more. I actually wish the guy tried to embarass them even more somehow.

Holy crap that was embarassing. What shit!

Geez, I'm always embarassed when my mom breaks out the baby pictures, but here you go posting it on videosift for everyone to see!

heh, if you think that's a long post to make a point, you should see my discussion with SDGundamX under this video http://videosift.com/video/Sam-Harris-on-the-error-of-evenhandedness

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if only it didnt take so many words to make the point =P

rambling is my curse

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Very well said.

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

if only it didnt take so many words to make the point =P

rambling is my curse

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Very well said.

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

Very well said.

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

"This is actually somewhat true. If breeds interbreed (derp, thats why they called breeds teehee?) there is very little chance of speciation occurring. Seperate a Great Dane a Chihuahua by a huge expanse of water for long enough though and eventually they will diverge to the point where they can no longer produce fertile offspring, or in other words, become a different species."

I don't think it really matters how long you wait or if one of the dogs lives in Alpha Centari..they will still just produce dogs according to the evidence. I suppose you could cook up anything and make it seem real by adding the magic value of millions of years..but without any real evidence its just pie in the sky

"I'd like to see you define a "fully formed" species. Honestly, this really shows how badly you misunderstand evolution. You are a transitional species, we all are, every single living thing on this planet is in some sense transitional. This misunderstanding of evolution seems to stem from the belief that it all happens at once, suddenly one day a bird hatches out of a dinosaur egg. Honey, it don't work like that, its millions of tiny changes from one generation to the next."

Fully formed as in, no true ancestors. There aren't any true ancestors for any of the major groups. There simply is no evidence in the fossil record demonstrating macro evolution which of course is seriously embarassing to darwinian theory. I highly doubt that darwin himself would maintain that his theory was true, just on the basis of the complexity of the cell and the DNA molecule alone.

"I really encourage you to learn more about speciation. It seems you accept that species do mutate to better survive, but you don't believe that results in them forming a whole new species. Thats quite a reasonable position to take but there is plenty of evidence explaining how speciation actually occurs. Gogo read up on it, its fascinating."

I will check it out. It sounds interesting.. Here is something I recommend...

A critique of 29 evidences for macro evolution

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

Ron Paul has no chance of winning. His own party doesn't support him.

I'm not saying Obama hasn't disappointed. Of course he has. He promised too much, and was obviously corrupted by the financial powers. But he's not anywhere as embarassing as Bush. And every viable Republitard is just going to support the anti-abortion, anti-Union, anti-Healthcare, anti-Social Security platform that they are all obsessed with right now.

I wouldn't vote for Paul right now even if he was viable. Not because of his own policies, but because of the Republitard policies that he would be politically forced to follow.

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.

It's amusing that no one here can actually just present their views without acting all incredulous "OMG I CANT BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE OMG UR SO DUMB OMG!!!" How about you just let your logic speak for itself. If you want to talk about intelligence, I scored 149 on my last IQ test..how about you? You science worshippers are more dogmatic and sensitive than any religious person I know, and that's the truth.

You can repeat something is true over and over again, as forcefully and dramatically as you want..there are no, and I repeat ZERO true transitionals. Yes of course every fossil is a transitional by definition..lol..but we're talking about actual records showing a change in kind to another kind. There aren't any. Here is a list of all the best ones science has found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

And here is the disclaimer:

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor

Read that a few times and let it sink in. None have ever been found, those are all extinct side branches, not true transitionals. Why don't you get a background and know you're talking about before you try to get into a debate with someone, let alone imply they themselves are ignorant.


>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.

Oh god.
Every animal and every fossil there ever was, is, and ever will be, IS a transitional form, by definition. If we limit ourselves to the human/homo linaege , please check out a video I recently posted about human evolution: http://videosift.com/video/Human-Evolution-and-Why-it-matters
If you watch that video, you will see how scientists are working to piece togheter a very large number of hominids with a large variety. its not like "Apes turned into human" in some neat movie-style morph, but a complex mess up populations of gradually more humanoid apes, the large majority of which formed long lineages that lived for thousands of years, before joining the vast collection of extinct species. Its become increasingly clear that we are one of many branches, and the last surviving in the hominid group so far.
The "no transitional fossils" is a laughable strawman argument, deeply ignorant and dishonest at the same time, in other words, typical creationist nonsense.
As for Irreducible complexity, , this is the most "sciencey" of the creationist drivel out there, but its still drivel. It's not even bad science, its just meaningless white noise designed to baffle people who has no knowledge of biology.