Tags for this video have been changed from 'stephen fry, rob brydon, sean locke, internet arguments, hitler hitler hitler' to 'stephen fry, rob brydon, sean locke, internet arguments, hitler hitler hitler, shorts' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stephen fry, rob brydon, sean locke, internet arguments' to 'stephen fry, rob brydon, sean locke, internet arguments, hitler hitler hitler' - edited by calvados

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Gallowflak:
Puerile, nonsensical and as absurd as I've ever seen. To dismiss anti-Scientology sentiment as inhabiting the same intellectual ground as 9/11 conspiracies is fucking inane. To deride GenjiKilpatrick as being ineffectual in the world and contributing nothing, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever - and simply because you disagree with his opposition to the CoS - is despicable. I don't understand what's wrong with you. Can nobody debate or discuss ideas anymore, without restorting to flailing and frothing like a toddler?
As an anecdote, my wife participated in a Scientology protest a few years ago. For two weeks straight she was stalked home by a Scientology goon who had memorized her schedule and route from work. It happens to more people than I can count. I don't think Scientology could ever be legitimately described as a non-issue.

You call what I did there flailing and frothing like a toddler? Really am I completely off the deep end saying that this internet argument won't amount to anything? That defeating CoS which you won't succeed in doing will be a boon to everyones existence? I'm not out of line here, this isn't an argument, it's me saying people who believe that CoS is a terrible scourge and deserves everyones attention and must be stopped is wrong. You're wrong if you think that we have to worry about CoS over almost ANY major issue in this country. People are actually dying for things we can fix easily and CoS isn't what's killing them. Grow up.
EDIT: Also if that's true about your wife...why didn't you call the cops? That's something you can do easily, but your story probably isn't true anyways you're just engaging in the same nasty tactics as you accuse CoS of doing...just making shit up...to be right in an argument on the internet. That's just sad.


I call what you did there "flailing and frothing like a toddler" as an expression of some misplaced hyperbole. The rest of your response contains things I've already responded to.

Large issues do not require that small issues be excluded from consideration. That's ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to compare the relative ferocity of problems when they're not related to one another. You can apply the same approach to medicine for a taste of how absurd it is; abandoning Parkinson's research in favour of a treatment for cancer, for example. Well, that's not how it works.

And no, Yogi, this "internet argument" won't amount to anything that's going to end up in the historical record. But I disagree with you. That is important enough to me to warrant an opposition to what you said.

I'm really not sure what you're arguing, though. It seems to be that your position is as I outlined in the second paragraph here, and that Scientology isn't a problem worth investing one's time in. I understand that there are issues in the world that have obscured others in your kaleidoscope of subjectivity, but those that don't concern you aren't unworthy of concern. You come across as a little bit solipsistic, and it makes me uncomfortable.

And don't call me a liar. There's no faster way to disintegrate your own legitimacy in a discussion, and it's a tactic used by those who feel like they're backed up into a corner. Tastes like ad hominem.

>> ^Gallowflak:

Puerile, nonsensical and as absurd as I've ever seen. To dismiss anti-Scientology sentiment as inhabiting the same intellectual ground as 9/11 conspiracies is fucking inane. To deride GenjiKilpatrick as being ineffectual in the world and contributing nothing, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever - and simply because you disagree with his opposition to the CoS - is despicable. I don't understand what's wrong with you. Can nobody debate or discuss ideas anymore, without restorting to flailing and frothing like a toddler?
As an anecdote, my wife participated in a Scientology protest a few years ago. For two weeks straight she was stalked home by a Scientology goon who had memorized her schedule and route from work. It happens to more people than I can count. I don't think Scientology could ever be legitimately described as a non-issue.


You call what I did there flailing and frothing like a toddler? Really am I completely off the deep end saying that this internet argument won't amount to anything? That defeating CoS which you won't succeed in doing will be a boon to everyones existence? I'm not out of line here, this isn't an argument, it's me saying people who believe that CoS is a terrible scourge and deserves everyones attention and must be stopped is wrong. You're wrong if you think that we have to worry about CoS over almost ANY major issue in this country. People are actually dying for things we can fix easily and CoS isn't what's killing them. Grow up.

EDIT: Also if that's true about your wife...why didn't you call the cops? That's something you can do easily, but your story probably isn't true anyways you're just engaging in the same nasty tactics as you accuse CoS of doing...just making shit up...to be right in an argument on the internet. That's just sad.

>> ^gtjwkq:
>> ^curiousity:
You left out the brainwashed people...
You guys should try having a more open and critical mind, there are people out there who think different about politics, don't take the easy way out.


I enjoyed the passive aggressiveness of your response. Thanks!

This was a flippant remark. Let me explain. A "shallow, or lacking in seriousness" comment that was made because it was late at night and I was tired. I will try to make the flippancy of future remarks more noticeable, should they be flippant.

Did it really look like an effort to have add a serious comment? I'll try to make up for the misunderstanding with a more serious response. I find it ineffective and irritating to discuss health care because it is rare for people to sit down and discuss a topic thoroughly. Near impossible on the internet. Why do you believe it? What information are you using? Is that information reliable? Has that information been interpreted or affected by how the it was obtained that skewed it in a direction and can you correct for it... and agree on the correction? Just look at some of the arguments above. Try to remove yourself from your personal beliefs and read both sides from a critical point of view. There are many different issues being discussed and people are fairly set in their beliefs. This won't end in a rational discussion because people approach it as an argument. In an argument, someone wins and someone loses (wins and loses broken up into partials.) However, on the internet, arguments usually end up in stalemates.

Let's be honest here. Although my original comment was flippant, there was a twinge of seriousness there. There are brainwashed people who are against free public health care. I'm referring to the people who get information from their favorite tv/radio host or some personally-respected person and believes them verbatim. No effort to investigate, no curiosity at all. That's fine because we can't be curious about everything, but those people will hold onto their beliefs, pushing them as facts, in the face of evidence to the contrary. Of course, these people exists on all sides of an issue.

As for military medical, I spent 6 years in the Navy. Most of the medical was atrocious. There were a few good doctors and you did your best to become friends with them. Of course it is just anecdotal evidence, but there is quite a bit of it.

"Dude, I was gonna post something but I forgot what it was"...

At least he didn't find a message with a youtube link and then proceed to RickRoll CNN....

How long has CNN been reading out internet arguments aloud? Sort of kills the point, doesn't it?

>> ^bcglorf:

Only replying once, because I really don't care for internet arguments, but here goes:

Yes, it's obvious that they are holding back from their full potential. It's widely understood that they have nuclear arms, and I have yet to see pictures of a mushroom cloud over the strip. Clearly they could do more damage if they wanted to, and they could be less discriminate about civilian casualties.

On the other hand, they've caused injuries to over 1,500 people already. Aside from cost to life and limb, the IDF has caused considerable infrastructure damage to a place that was already in precarious third world conditions.

If you honestly think that Israel does its best to minimize civilian casualties, then please explain this:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html

The reason they aren't going farther is because they're playing politics. The world wouldn't be able to ignore it, and the US wouldn't be able to back it if Israel decided to "turn Gaza into a giant glass crater." Without US support, they fall. Therefore, they won't obliterate Gaza in one swift strike because they can't, so long as they too wish to survive as a country.

Killing civilians is deplorable, and war is deplorable, end of story. I have less sympathy for Israel in this conflict because they're the aggressors. Take a look at a few historical maps, and its pretty clear that Israel simply wants more territory. Hamas leaders have repeatedly stated that they could co-exist with Israel as defined in the Camp David Accords. The only problem is that Israel isn't interested in honoring that agreement.

Israel has Palestine backed into such a corner that parents can't properly feed their children, it's unsafe for people to walk their own streets, and unemployment in the country is over 20%. How can you possibly be surprised that parts of the populace want to strike back at their common enemy? Do you think they'd still be firing rockets blindly at towns if they had US-made F-16s of their own?

charlatantric has really dispensed a serving on this sift, imo.. i have to say well done to him

it's an internet argument and everyone loses, but still, he's put some boot to backside here

Complaining about grammar and spelling on the Internet is as much of a waste of time as trying to win an Internet argument. The Internet is not an academic journal with strict editing guidelines. People are going to write quickly and casually and that means they are going to make mistakes.

If it makes you feel better about yourself to play it smug because you anal-retentively spend precious minutes of your life spell-checking everything you post, by all means continue to do so. Clearly, though, the majority of people on the Internet have better things to do with their time, such as scavenge for more cat-videos to Sift.

I hate arguing on the internet. I'm going to hazard a guess that NOBODY here is a climatologist or an ecologist of sorts, so don't act like you are please. I enjoyed reading State of Fear, but I do agree with the majority of people here with regards to climate change and all that.

But I really hate internet arguments. You know what they say: "arguing on the internet is like the special olympics- even if you win, you're still retarded."