*related=http://videosift.com/video/Tree-climbing-pro-Nat-Geo-photog-gets-shot-of-a-lifetime
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Rare-Wilson-s-Bird-Of-Paradise
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-craziest-birds-ever

Tree-climbing pro, Nat Geo photog gets shot of a lifetime has been added as a related post - related requested by grinter.

The Rare Wilson's Bird Of Paradise has been added as a related post - related requested by grinter.

The craziest birds ever! has been added as a related post - related requested by grinter.

Congratulations! Your video, Tree-climbing pro, Nat Geo photog gets shot of a lifetime, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!

On this vid: http://videosift.com/video/Tree-climbing-pro-Nat-Geo-photog-gets-shot-of-a-lifetime when I clicked on the comments button, rather than scrolling down to the comments, Everything up to the bottom 20% or so of the video disappeared up under the mouse-over menus and I couldn't get it back, like the centre panel had scrolled under it, but wouldn't scroll back. I opened a duplicate window and tried again, and this the whole video was gone, leaving only the "From YT..." description on down visible under the mouse-over menus. I haven't been able to duplicate it again.

I'm using Chrome on Win7 64-bit.

Your video, Tree-climbing pro, Nat Geo photog gets shot of a lifetime, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The question is, what ground do you have to make *any* knowledge claim? If you can't tell me even one thing you know for certain, then what do you actually know? As I gave in my example, if you asked someone what time it is and they said I think it's 3 pm, do they actually know it?

The point is that we do know things, and we operate in a world of certainty, but the only way to justify that knowledge is by pointing to God. You can't justify it by pointing to yourself.

I happily admit that there is a theoretical possibility that everything is a computer program designed to deceive me into believing a particular state of affairs, but as a sane person, I go about life assuming that my senses do a pretty good job of telling me about the world around me. If you have difficulty with this, you are deranged.

Do everyones senses work equally well? Is everyones reasoning equally valid? If you're satisfied with circular reasoning, ie, that your senses are valid because your senses tell you they're valid, then you should have no problem with the argument that God exists because He exists.

So outright, I reject the notion that there is any need for absolute certainty, much less that someone's imaginary friend they keep telling me about can provide it.

There is when making knowledge claims. Again, if you can't make any, what do you actually know?

Reality is invariably self consistent, the coincidence of that alone is enough to convince me to pay attention to people who do their darndest to understand it (reality) and do my darndest to understand it myself.

What's your theory about why it should it be "self-consistent", or comprehensible by human beings at all?

And no, even if there is some way to improve our current degree of certainty by the ten to the power of negative eighty two percent we lack to achieve absolute certainty, then you don't get to arbitrarily claim that God is that way because a book says he knows everything. And especially not if you had a personal revelation.

That isn't the argument. The argument is, there are only two routes to truth. One is that you're omnipotent. Two is revelation from an omnipotent being. Everyone else is living in a world of uncertainty and does not really know anything. The argument is, without God, you can't prove anything.

My buddy Shane told me yesterday that the buck stops with him, and he was simply born with complete omniscience. He knows absolutely everything. He's coming over to dinner tomorrow, if you stop by my place he can tell you about it too. It's crazy, some weird and rare genetic defect from what I understand. But I'll tell you, boy am I glad he has that defect because if he didn't, I'd only be about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that it's a bad idea to get shot in the head by an AK 47. I mean, you never know. There are times when I want to test those odds.

I'm sure you could name any number of situations where it seems very likely that you know something, but the question remains, how do you prove it? You don't have any proof for your claims no matter how obvious they may seem.

Whether or not we can know anything for certain to such an extreme is a functionally useless question to start with, I like to think of it as the Sudoku of philosophy - for some it is fun and maybe challenging to work through, it might even make someone feel vaguely intellectual when they're watching an action flick, but it is otherwise utterly pointless.

I happily admit that there is a theoretical possibility that everything is a computer program designed to deceive me into believing a particular state of affairs, but as a sane person, I go about life assuming that my senses do a pretty good job of telling me about the world around me. If you have difficulty with this, you are deranged.

So outright, I reject the notion that there is any need for absolute certainty, much less that someone's imaginary friend they keep telling me about can provide it.

Reality is invariably self consistent, the coincidence of that alone is enough to convince me to pay attention to people who do their darndest to understand it (reality) and do my darndest to understand it myself.

And no, even if there is some way to improve our current degree of certainty by the ten to the power of negative eighty two percent we lack to achieve absolute certainty, then you don't get to arbitrarily claim that God is that way because a book says he knows everything. And especially not if you had a personal revelation.

My buddy Shane told me yesterday that the buck stops with him, and he was simply born with complete omniscience. He knows absolutely everything. He's coming over to dinner tomorrow, if you stop by my place he can tell you about it too. It's crazy, some weird and rare genetic defect from what I understand. But I'll tell you, boy am I glad he has that defect because if he didn't, I'd only be about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that it's a bad idea to get shot in the head by an AK 47. I mean, you never know. There are times when I want to test those odds.

>> ^nach0s:

I was wondering why he was out in the open too. Then I read the video description... did you guys?


His post-hoc rationalization of what he was doing doesn't help matters. He acted in a really dumb way. If he's so heroic, then why did he get himself shot, then hole up in a position where the cavalry would have to run through the same hail of bullets to rescue him, shouting "Medic! I'm hit!" over and over.

No, what he says after the fact simply ain't true. He panicked, he thought he was superhuman, he just wasn't thinking straight, he suffered from a lack of training.

And no, I'm not getting this from my FPS experience, but from my Army experience and Veteran status. What he did was wrong, it endangered his life and the lives of his squad-mates. First off, they weren't pinned down by machine-gun fire, I only heard single shots and short bursts incoming. Secondly, fighting a hit-and-fade enemy like the Taliban, being "pinned down" is not a bad place to be. If you wait them out they'll take to the hills. They don't want to wait for the airstrike they know is coming. Third, by running down the hill and getting shot he forced some of his guys to come get him, endangering their lives. Lastly, he said in his blurb he was under the command of an Lt. yet he didn't wait for an order, nor did he appear to be acting on an order, he just ran off with his cock in his hand and a big "shoot me" sign on his chest and left it to his allies to come clean up the mess.

"NSFW for language."

Welcome to modern society. Here's a video of someone actually getting shot but careful, he uses some naughty language.

He was running point, drawing fire (successfully)away from his squad with his LT. I'm surprised he doesn't have a wheelbarrow to carry those huge balls. His squad was pinned by machine gun fire. You can hear it, he's not getting shot at by the machine gun, from the sound of it he's taking fire from small arms most likely AK-47's and what not. As for poor training? I think he showed some pretty damn good discipline for staying calm as he draws fire upon himself, with rounds landing inches from him pretty regularly.

For fear of getting shot or angering "People with guns," no one will/can stand up for gun con control.

Gun Lobbyists have cash.

>> ^kymbos:

So what was the point of saying 'Brazil is worse'?
I would love to hear an honest argument from the pro-gun lobby. Something like this: "Ok, so we understand that guns kill people - that's what they're for. We understand that the more guns there are in a society, and the more high powered they are, the more people will get shot and killed. But we like guns, and we as a society are willing to accept the consequences of these preferences. Now fuck off and leave us to our guns."
At least it's honest. There's no bullshit, inverted logic, blind refusal to accept reality. It's a genuine acceptance of fact and consequence.
And if I'm not mistaken, support for gun use is growing all the time in America. So why not?


You obviously haven't read anything I have posted, so I'll sum it up and be done with you. Guns are more often used to prevent crime or save lives than they are used to murder or commit crimes (but you won't hear that from the mass media networks). Only 10% of violent crimes involve the use of a gun. Other countries that have made it illegal for private citizens to own guns, crime went up after the guns were confiscated, so your idea that less guns = less crime is flawed. Your own link said America is more violent than all other advanced countries, but if 90% of violent crimes don't involve guns, obviously guns aren't the problem and less guns won't stop the violence.

So what was the point of saying 'Brazil is worse'?

I would love to hear an honest argument from the pro-gun lobby. Something like this: "Ok, so we understand that guns kill people - that's what they're for. We understand that the more guns there are in a society, and the more high powered they are, the more people will get shot and killed. But we like guns, and we as a society are willing to accept the consequences of these preferences. Now fuck off and leave us to our guns."

At least it's honest. There's no bullshit, inverted logic, blind refusal to accept reality. It's a genuine acceptance of fact and consequence.

And if I'm not mistaken, support for gun use is growing all the time in America. So why not?

You also didnt have a megaphone blasting at you requesting you leave that area. Safe to say there was no need to immediately disperse, and had they all been hanging around watching someone get stabbed then you should have left and called the cops.

>> ^L0cky:

I went into town one evening a few weeks ago and saw a big crowd of people. I decided to walk up and see what was going on. Turned out the Olympic torch was passing through and they were putting on a show of it; and man it was pretty slick.
But now that I've read you're post I realise how stupid I was. I could have been associating myself with all kinds of horrible crimes; maybe even murder or drink driving! And as I wasn't ACTIVELY disassociating myself from the activities before me I was justifiably laying myself down to the mercy of any reckless police officer that may be in the vicinity. If one of them shot me, I would have felt foolish and would have only myself to blame. Thanks for the info!
Or rather, without the smart ass stuff, you're post has a major flaw. You failed to specify any crime that this naive, biased, hothead youth of America was supposed to be disassociating himself from.
>> ^legacy0100:
Know your civic duties before claiming you are being violated of your rights. Naive, biased, hotheaded youth of America.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!