The New York Times stealth-edited their article to remove all of the objectionable content, apparently.

http://observer.com/2012/08/new-york-times-article-on-julian-assange-asylum-scrubs-its-toilet-reference/

@Ryjkyj,

I don't get what or who you're objecting to here. Look, I'm with you that we shouldn't be policing thoughts, but I don't see anyone advocating that. Nobody has suggested that Tosh be legally banned from making rape jokes. What happened is that the woman heckled (which I agree she shouldn't have done), Tosh responded in a way that many people consider extremely assholish and some people consider threatening (and words can be threatening without being direct threats). The woman's friend blogged about it, not with the intention of getting Congress to pass a bill against joking about rape, but with the intention of publicizing the fact that Tosh is a douchecanoe. Surely having that information out there is a good thing. This way, people who don't want to support this kind of thing know that they should avoid Tosh shows. Nobody is preventing people who don't mind the joke from attending Tosh shows in the future. In addition, a number of people think Tosh owes the woman a sincere apology, but again no one is saying that he should be forced to apologize. People are saying that if he were a decent human being he would apologize.

What exactly in this chain of events do you find so objectionable (besides the initial heckling)? Where is the thought policing here? I feel like I'm in Bizarro world sometime when I'm discussing these things. I'll say something like "That joke was racist and not cool at all" and people will respond with "Don't you respect free speech? Do you want there to be a thought police? What about the First Amendment?" That sort of response just seems like a complete non sequitur.

@ChaosEngine @NetRunner I think you are abusing the first amendment here. The first amendment says nothing about how independent businesses should conduct themselves, but how the government should conduct itself. Unless you are saying that businesses also must provide for " the right to trial by jury", which is of course just silly

Self censorship is a right, unless you are going to say that people selling ad space on TV must accept some kind of objectionable material. So, if one of the largest FREE video upload sites knocks off your video, to bad, so sad...and you might have a case that they violated the agreed upon terms of serves and have some sort of appeal...but in the end...you don't have a RIGHT to store video information on a server that you don't own...period. Now, to relent to your point, I think it is a shitty to boost that you are a open forum and start editing content away...but lets not overlook that youtube ALREADY censors all adult (pornographic) material. Youtube might start to shift away to a public forum of video information to more of galactic TV service...and they should be allowed to do so.

So the REAL question is will you still use them if this is the business model they adapt. Not that we get to force them (by law) into what we want youtube to be, the choice will be much more indirect. Anyway, I truly think you are abusing the words "free market" and "free speech" to advance a demagogically end. Youtube has ALWAYS filtered content, is fully in its rights to do so. And to carry your logic to its end...they should be forced to store pornographic information in the name of the first amendment, (which was never its intent) to wit @gwiz665 just gave 2 thumbs up. Then again, the FCC should also then be shut down for censorship of free speech by the same token, as the actively participate in the largest censorship regime, perhaps, in the world. Which would also be the same body responsible for not censoring the internet...fail.

Cheers.>> ^luxury_pie:

>> ^therealblankman:
>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^therealblankman:
What the fuck is this? TorutureAnimalSift? Next we'll have a shit-ton of videos with assholes poking lions with sticks through the bars of their cages and tapping the glass at the aquarium.
Bullshit. Video doesn't belong here.

I don't find this video anymore objectionable than this for example.
Sorry if my tags and title sounded like I'd find it amusing how those little ones react when captured. I assumed they were treated well in general.

Fair point, but it's the old "Two tortured animals doesn't make a right" quandary.
Also minor difference- the cat was terrified, which is understandable considering the circumstances and surroundings- it was probably confused, disoriented and scared but nobody was deliberately hurting it. In this video the frog is being goaded by someone poking the container with their finger- you can see this on the left side through the translucent plastic.
I stand by the assertion that this is animal torture and doesn't belong on the sift.
Footnote: I've flagged the video on youtube for animal abuse. Hopefully that will take care of it.

Oh, I missed the finger. This puts it in the torture category for me, too.
I just found it hilarious, how the other frog "complained" about the noise
discard

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^therealblankman:
What the fuck is this? TorutureAnimalSift? Next we'll have a shit-ton of videos with assholes poking lions with sticks through the bars of their cages and tapping the glass at the aquarium.
Bullshit. Video doesn't belong here.

I don't find this video anymore objectionable than this for example.
Sorry if my tags and title sounded like I'd find it amusing how those little ones react when captured. I assumed they were treated well in general.

Fair point, but it's the old "Two tortured animals doesn't make a right" quandary.
Also minor difference- the cat was terrified, which is understandable considering the circumstances and surroundings- it was probably confused, disoriented and scared but nobody was deliberately hurting it. In this video the frog is being goaded by someone poking the container with their finger- you can see this on the left side through the translucent plastic.
I stand by the assertion that this is animal torture and doesn't belong on the sift.
Footnote: I've flagged the video on youtube for animal abuse. Hopefully that will take care of it.


Oh, I missed the finger. This puts it in the torture category for me, too.
I just found it hilarious, how the other frog "complained" about the noise
*discard

>> ^luxury_pie:

>> ^therealblankman:
What the fuck is this? TorutureAnimalSift? Next we'll have a shit-ton of videos with assholes poking lions with sticks through the bars of their cages and tapping the glass at the aquarium.
Bullshit. Video doesn't belong here.

I don't find this video anymore objectionable than this for example.
Sorry if my tags and title sounded like I'd find it amusing how those little ones react when captured. I assumed they were treated well in general.


Fair point, but it's the old "Two tortured animals doesn't make a right" quandary.

Also minor difference- the cat was terrified, which is understandable considering the circumstances and surroundings- it was probably confused, disoriented and scared but nobody was deliberately hurting it. In this video the frog is being goaded by someone poking the container with their finger- you can see this on the left side through the translucent plastic.

I stand by the assertion that this is animal torture and doesn't belong on the sift.

Footnote: I've flagged the video on youtube for animal abuse. Hopefully that will take care of it.

>> ^therealblankman:

What the fuck is this? TorutureAnimalSift? Next we'll have a shit-ton of videos with assholes poking lions with sticks through the bars of their cages and tapping the glass at the aquarium.
Bullshit. Video doesn't belong here.


I don't find this video anymore objectionable than this for example.

Sorry if my tags and title sounded like I'd find it amusing how those little ones react when captured. I assumed they were treated well in general.

BTW, min wage laws hurt those who most need a wage. It is really hard to get a job as a used up drug addict. A church I used to be a part of as a Christian tried at length to get the homeless into decent jobs, but when you don't have the faculties anymore, it is hard to get a job where you are worth 7.50 an hour. And while we never ended up facing this issue, because we stopped trying because of legal reason, we tried to do this kind of subcontracting where we would hire ourselves to clean local businesses restrooms for real cheap, "hire out" some help being burned out street people, then pay them the full amount we contracted ourselves for. It was a legal nightmare because of the min wage laws preventing us from doing it. In the end, it was a job that could of been done for money, but in the end, we had to just give them money. In other words, there are many jobs that could be done by the neediest of people who don't have the mental gusto to be deserving of a full wage job. In the end, it ends up forcing a charity gap, where people that don't have skills merit a wage of whatever the min wage is to rely on charity of some sort.

In this, we make law breakers out of them. The man that offers to wash your window for a buck or whathaveyou isn't really complying with min wage laws exactly. That doesn't matter when it is just a car driver handing out money, but when a business can't hire some street folks to make regular cleaning of their outside patio area, then something has broken. Even if I could be convinced that we need a min wage, the way it is setup atm is to "help" middle/lower middle class people at the expense of the most poor. Implementation is very important, almost more important that the act itself. Any act that explicitly raises unemployment for the poorest of the poor is explicitly bad in my opinion.

As a side note, even when I was an unskilled worker...a high school student, I have always made a wage greater than min wage, even when working in fast food. Think about your own wage history, have you ever made the actual lowest wage? If not, then think about the skill set of a person that makes it, and then think of the person that exists below it. The person that exist below the min wage is the person that is most afflicted with the negative this life has to offer, and is also rejected from employment opportunities. I can not morally and rationally support min wage laws as they exist today, I have dealt to much with the pain of rebuilding a life of work and happiness that hedges against the laws. Any law that makes flat out charity the ONLY means of rebuilding your life is morally objectionable.

It's only fallacious if I'm actually making an argument, which I wasn't. Just personal comments on the man's work.

I didn't go into specifics simply because of time, but if you like, I can give you a brief rundown of what I find objectionable about his work.

The KCA: Craig seems to think that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a very strong argument for theism, but it has numerous weaknesses. Craig argues for the impossibility of an actual infinite, whether in terms of a series in time, or of an infinitude of physical objects. His arguments in this regard are spectacularly weak. He believes, for instance, that the Hilbert's Hotel paradox shows that an actual infinite is absurd. This is not what the paradox shows, however--it only shows that an actual infinite would behave in unintuitive ways, breaking apart properties of numbers that we normally find together. Moreover, Craig provides no good reason to think that the first cause would have to be personal. He assumes that only a person could cause something to come from nothing, but doesn't back this up with any sound arguments.

Religious Epistemology: Craig asserts that philosophical arguments are neither necessary nor sufficient to have justified belief and genuine knowledge of the truth of Christianity--the light of the Holy Spirit is enough. He says this of himself as well, and is thus committed to his belief in Christianity regardless of any arguments that might be presented. He thus declares himself impervious to any argument that might vitiate Christianity--this is a profound philosophical failing. To declare that no conceivable argument can convince you away from your position is to declare the entire philosophical enterprise almost entirely purposeless with regard to that question.

The Resurrection: Craig uses Bayesian probability theory to argue for the likelihood of the resurrection, claiming that when the calculation of prior probability includes a belief in the existence of God, then the resurrection will be probable--and thus, the rejection of the resurrection by atheists just comes down to a dogmatic rejection based on a previously held belief. Craig is not the first to make this argument; Richard Swinburne first advanced it in the 70's. It is, however, a very bad argument. It only works if the "God" in question is in particular a Christian God to begin with. Not just any God will do, or the resurrection of Jesus is hardly more likely than the epiphany of Krishna or the revelations to Mohammad. But the specifically Christian notion of God was developed only out of belief in the resurrection in the first place. Thus, Craig's argument is largely circular.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I take issue with the assertion that Louis C.K. is not a millionaire.
And even if he's not there yet, he will be. I don't think I'd have any problem stealing from the guy. All this comparing of stealing intellectual material off of the internet raises a red flag for me because even if I did download the show, it's not like I'm going to sell it to someone else to make myself money. That's the thing that I think is morally objectionable.
It sounds silly to say that it's a crime to experience Louis C.K.'s comedy and derive pleasure from that experience. Maybe if I was an artist who actually tried to make a profit I would feel differently. But it's not like Louis C.K.'s comedy is a TV that I can steal, keep around for a while, and then sell to my friend Tom for some crack money. But I do respect the guy. If I had any extra money at all, I'd happily pay the five bucks, but I don't. Come to think of it, if I had extra money, I'd probably be paying for a charter membership first.
I don't know though. You gotta respect a guy who tries something new. Maybe I won't download it. I'll save it until they come out with the Criterion: Ultimate Louis C.K. Experience. That's the kind of thing I'm happy to waste money on.


Argh... see, I torrent, and I justify myself in ways, but I know I can't actually make it 'right'. You're assertion that stealing is only stealing when it's a physical object is such utter bullshit.

You're essentially saying that his comedy has no value. You're saying that because you can get it for free, easily, then it doesn't feel like stealing to you, and so that means it isn't.

What shit. You apply this to movies and tv shows as well I assume? You're saying that they have no value, even though you like to watch them, you derive pleasure from them in much the way you might derive pleasure from eating nice food... which you would pay for. Or reading a book which... no you'd probably just download the ebook from a torrent site.

Stop trying to pretend that what you're doing is right. You can justify it however you like, but it is a crime, these people spent good fucking money making this stuff (around $200K in Louis' case by his reckoning), and yet you think you're entitled to it for free.

Oh, and I see you're doing the old 'well, he must be rich, so me taking stuff from him won't be doing him any harm' line of reasoning. Which is a popular line, but logically bullshit. How much of a difference your money will make to him shouldn't factor into it. Are the goods on offer worth the price being charged? That's it, no 'Are the goods worth the money & is the person creating it starving'.

I take issue with the assertion that Louis C.K. is not a millionaire.

And even if he's not there yet, he will be. I don't think I'd have any problem stealing from the guy. All this comparing of stealing intellectual material off of the internet raises a red flag for me because even if I did download the show, it's not like I'm going to sell it to someone else to make myself money. That's the thing that I think is morally objectionable.

It sounds silly to say that it's a crime to experience Louis C.K.'s comedy and derive pleasure from that experience. Maybe if I was an artist who actually tried to make a profit I would feel differently. But it's not like Louis C.K.'s comedy is a TV that I can steal, keep around for a while, and then sell to my friend Tom for some crack money. But I do respect the guy. If I had any extra money at all, I'd happily pay the five bucks, but I don't. Come to think of it, if I had extra money, I'd probably be paying for a charter membership first.

I don't know though. You gotta respect a guy who tries something new. Maybe I won't download it. I'll save it until they come out with the Criterion: Ultimate Louis C.K. Experience. That's the kind of thing I'm happy to waste money on.

I agree with @fuzzyundies. I've got absolutely no use for Timmy, and firmly believe he's one of those who should be living in a cell for the next 15-20 years. But -this- clip says nothing objectionable.

@SDGundamX

On the So-Called Benifits of Religious Belief

First, I'm going to assume that you simply googled "religion+health+studies" or stg like that, and did not read before posting; frankly, I don't blame you. I can only hope you are not as intellectually (and downright) dishonest as the second link you posted: the very first study cited is completely misinterpreted; basically, since kissing multiple partners can increase probability of meningococcal disease, and strict religious tradition would prevent that, religion prevents meningococcal disease. Yeah, really strong science in favour of faith right there. Some of the studies cited actually prove the opposite of what the site is peddling, but they excuse this by accusing the meddling of "Jews and Buddhists" in the prayer groups. I'm actually surprised at some of the studies the website cites, one of which concludes that "Certain forms of religiousness may increase the risk of death." Some of the studies make no mention of religion whatsoever. I could go on, but the point is made.

As for the studies - and they exist - that show positive correlation between health and religion, they concern only the social benefits of religion as community*. The so-called "New Atheists" are the first to point out this positive role, although the uniting and socially reinforcing factor of religion is the same force that fosters and reinforces hate, prejudice and discrimination against the self (guilt) and the "Other" (non-members of the ingroup, "heathens", gays, blacks, "Westerners", you name it). When people use the socially unifying and reinforcing benefits of religious organisations to defend religious beliefs, a certain comparison quickly comes to mind, which Godwin's law prohibits me from making...

As for faith itself, a recent study suggests that it can actually have negative effects on health, because of the stress and guilt believers put upon themselves when prayed for (link). Regardless, even if a positive placebo effect could/can be attributed to faith/rel. belief, it does not make it any less idiotic or objectionable than the belief in homeopathy or vaudou.
_{(if interested in what I think of the "faith is comforting" argument, pm me, I'm filling this thread enough as is)}

Your "two-sides of same coin" analogy fails entirely: telling a believer they're delusional is not denying their perception of their own happiness. A child happy at the prospect of Santa delivering presents is delusional, but truly happy. The idea that there is the same amount of evidence against and for religious belief is pure ludicrous. The Abrahamic God (let's not bring in the thousand and one others for now) has been logically disproven, even before el Jeebs showed up with his promise of hellfire. There is also substantial evidence that he is man-made, as are the book(s) describing him, which are full of inconsistencies (and outright fallacies) themselves.

Your comment about John Smith suggests that the only evidence that could convict a fraudster is confession; good thing you aren't a judge! Seriously though, your doubt probably stems from your lack of acquaintance with the evidence. You can start by reading his brief biography on Wikipedia; his con trick of "glass-seeing" (looking at shiny stones in a hat and pretending to see the location of treasure), for which he was arrested several times, is eerily familiar to the birth of the Book of Mormon (looking into a hat and "transcribing" gold plates that probably did not exist). He even had to change a passage after losing some pages of the transcript He received a divine revelation that the exact pages of the transcript that he lost needed to be changed, and that God had foreseen the loss of those papers (link).

The further one goes back in history, the harder it is to get historical evidence against religious beliefs, but there are always logical arguments that count as evidence as well (in arguing the idiocy of certain beliefs). Since my Santa analogy above seems not to have appealed to you, here's a different one. Imagine Kate were to have said "I do not believe in witchcraft/vampires because I'm not an idiot." Audience response? "Duh!" or stg similar. And yet there is the same amount of evidence for witches and vampires as there is for deities and afterlife**. The only difference between these three once highly common delusions is that one of them persists, even demanding respect, when it deserves at best critical scrutiny, at worst nothing but scorn.


<sub>*(and sometimes those benefits stemming from certain rules, like no alcohol/extra-marital sex etc... still nothing to do with belief.)

**Actually, there is relatively more evidence in favour of vampirism than of deities and afterlife</sub>


tl;dr: faith/rel. belief has no health benefits (check sources b4 posting); argument of religion's social role is double-edged; delusions are still delusions if they make you happy (try drugs); Joseph Smith Jr was a (convicted) fraud; idiotic beliefs are still idiotic when shared by the majority, just more socially unacceptable to mock.

>> ^SDGundamX:


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.
My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.
About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.
I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails). [...]

I agree with Hitchens's take on this topic. You're already familiar with the objections, so I won't waste my time repeating them for you.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Ok Hitchens, lets hear your argument as to why it is morally objectionable.

Ok Hitchens, lets hear your argument as to why it is morally objectionable.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^shinyblurry:
This is the reason Jesus came, to reconcile us to God. The wages of sin is death, and He paid that price for us, so that we could be forgiven and receieve eternal life.

And the doctrine of vicarious atonement is one of the most morally objectionable concepts in the whole Bible.