My thoughts exactly.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Ironic that he has such poor English grammar structure.

Ironic that he has such poor English grammar structure.

that's not a child show,
it's a show from 1970's in France
the guy with the black hear is "Michel Drucker" a well know speaker in tv that presented singers.
the guys with the blond hear is "Claude Francois", the guy who singed "comme d'habitude" that has been translated in english as "my way"

but in that prensent case : shame on french


sorry for my poor english

Tags for this video have been changed from 'half, life, fan, fiction, poor, english, THE END' to 'half life, fan fiction, poor english, THE END, garrys mod' - edited by EDD

Well I think ignorance can be more of a cause for stupidity. I see stupidity as more of a verb then a adjective, also stupidity can sometimes be subjective. But ignorance is something that you help with, stupidity you can't do much about.

But hey it's all semantics I suppose.

In reply to this comment by Bakalex:
Totally agree with you gorgonheap on your whole comment. And I'm seriously considering to edit a tee with "Ignorance != Stupidity" printed on it, since i've been repeating that fact for years now.
Ignorance is lack of knowledge.
Stupidity is lack of common sense.

BTW, i'm constantly questioning myself about a connection between those two, which leads me to assume that they're not directly binded.

(sorry about my poor english ...)

Totally agree with you gorgonheap on your whole comment. And I'm seriously considering to edit a tee with "Ignorance != Stupidity" printed on it, since i've been repeating that fact for years now.
Ignorance is lack of knowledge.
Stupidity is lack of common sense.

BTW, i'm constantly questioning myself about a connection between those two, which leads me to assume that they're not directly binded.

(sorry about my poor english ...)

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Evolution doesn't scare me, what does it when it's presented in a way that makes 'scientific minds' hold on to this, 'your stupid if you don't believe this' attitude. Please keep in mind ignorance is not the same as stupidity.

If someone doesn't understand Evolution, explain why. There's far to many 'evolutionists' who say, "why don't you believe this are you stupid?" When what they should be saying is "What part of evolution doesn't make sense to you?"

When I was in High School our science teacher spent just shy of one day on evolution. And to explore the theory of evolution takes more time then that. That's not enough time for me to see how evolution fits into my religeous beliefs or personal feelings.

Simply because someone does not know enough about evolution to make a clear analysis of it doesn't mean they are stupid. More often then not 'stupidity' is simply ignorance, and lets face it we're all ignorant about a great many things.

Totally agree with you gorgonheap on your whole comment. And I'm seriously considering to edit a tee with "Ignorance != Stupidity" printed on it, since i've been repeating that fact for years now.
Ignorance is lack of knowledge.
Stupidity is lack of common sense.

BTW, i'm constantly questioning myself about a connection between those two, which leads me to assume that they're not directly binded.

(sorry about my poor english ...)

I welled up while watching the video, it was sad, but one thing that I disliked was the captioning throughout the video, it was poor English and at times barely readable, but more to the point, there was a slight reek of Chinese nationalism/patriotism which didn't really need to be there, anyone, any place, any time, I would have still felt the same way regardless of national identity.
To take words from a song, "why can't we see, that when we bleed we bleed the same"

The thing is, there was no religion bashing going on here.
The people sitting in front of the camera did not attack the caller's religious beliefs, nor did they try to invalidate them. They answered his questions about their own beliefs in a calm and respectable way, logically and practically stating their reasoning for thinking the way they do, and being very clear in that they were not trying to convert the caller or reduce his religion. The fact that he took such offense can be due to several reasons, none which directly have anything to do with the people sitting in front of the camera.
Just speculating as to why the caller flew off the handle like that, he might never have talked to anyone before who did not believe in god, and as such was completely oblivious to the fact that anyone could doubt it. Or, he may only have argued against people who could not adequately justify their doubts in god or put their doubts into words eloquently enough, and as such his debating ego got a severe bruising when these atheists shot down all his points one by one.
Whatever the case may be, what we can be sure of is that the caller took the discussion way too personal and way too seriously. Would you say there could have been any other way that the people in front of the camera could have defended their views so to not cause the caller to be offended like that? Personally, I don't think they could have done anything to change the outcome but simply give up. And that would not be right either, would it?

I've never understood the difficulty people have with accepting atheists or their arguments. I think it's stated quite clearly here that atheism is the lack of belief, not the belief in nothing. Don't believe in something until it's got some form of credible validation and/or evidence speaking for it, that's not such a revolutionary position to take, is it? As I understand it, there's really nothing more to it than that.
Don't confuse the collective group of people with individuals whom you dislike for some reason or another.

And please don't make personal attacks, guys. If you disagree with what someone writes, by all means say you disagree, but it's really not necessary to take to name calling or bring up any issues the poster has which are not directly relevant to the video at hand or the discussion here. To clear up what I mean, I'll supply a link to a page which talks about logical fallacies:
http://www.rcaston.com/?q=node/606

Edit: And on the note of there being a lack of religious debates where both parties are equally learned and knowledgable, let's ask ourselves why that could be. Again, speaking for myself, there's the possibility that the learned religious people of which you speak abstain from entering these arguments simply because they know there's no "real" evidence for their beliefs (hence them being beliefs) and instead take their religion for how they perceive it was meant, as a personal guideline for living a moral and ethical life.
Of course, this is just mere speculation, but seems to me the polarized, extremist views some people hold can be the result of living with only likeminded. Separated from any and all people with different views and growing up in a (in the lack of a better word, excuse my poor English) one-sided environment seems to lead to points of contention more and more turning into personal truths.

If I told you that I believe in reincarnation and you ask me for evidence for it, I'd be unable to provide any for you. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop believing in it, it just means I'm probably not going to convince you to share my conviction, but that's alright because that's not my goal. Being the only one having that conviction would detract nothing from it, nor knowing that me believing in it was due to my parents teaching it.

ok, I'm french as you imagine (so excuse my poor english)
I found this video on a french site and I decided to try my first post here. I don't know exactly where it comes from but I thought it was really good.
I don't really understand what is the problem with it, the video comes from here and has been posted on this site a few hours ago :
http://www.webjunkie.fr/2008/01/31/la-methode-forte-de-mtv-pour-nous-faire-reflechir/
If something is bad, I'd really like to understand where is the problem.
[edit]
thanks

...the poor English comes off sounding like a stupid person wrote it.

Exactly.

Well, I'm a horrible person, but all of the examples I saw on this page including the original video were hilarious to me. I think what makes this video funny, though, is that it is read with no accent, so the poor English comes off sounding like a stupid person wrote it.

greeeaat post!!!!
south london they say "arks" and "libry"

i totally disagree that this is "wrong" or "bad" or "poor" english. The only reason english got the way it did is because it is so "wrong". To stop that development, to freeze time, is actually more wrong.

My girl learnt "BBC English". I taught her south london. Now she can say "Wha' the fak?" with the best of them.

People quickly forget that english is at root a "low" german heavily influenced by french. if the french hadn't invaded and changed the official language to french, the peasants wouldn't have had 300 years to bastardise and simplify english, making it the perfect language to learn as a second language, precisely because it doesn't have all the crazy endings and cases any more (see scottishmartialarts above)

So, in other words, the english this guy is calling "correct" is actually totally mashed up, and he should probably learn german or lithuanian or greek instead, or sanskrit or something.

But, i totally agree with him that there should be such thing as "business english"... but you should not feel ashamed about your heritage if you learn a different dialect in order to get a job.

Again, what standard are you using? Who's making these rules? Nothing can be "poor" or "good" unless you have some sort of standard to compare it to. How about someone saying "you all" as "y'all?" Is that "uneducated" or "poor" English? No, of course not. My point is that we're much more tolerant of these regional pronunciations for one simple reason: a large population of caucasions use them.

Let's not confuse "grammar" with "pronunciation." They are two different concepts. If I say "y'all" but know full well that it is written "you all" or even only "you" in formal writing contexts (academic, business, etc.) then accusing my English of being "poor" is silly. Yet some people will consider a black student who writes "ask" correctly yet prounounces it "ax" as uneducated. And their only justification for such a judgement is that it isn't "standard English." And as I mentioned in the previous post, what they usually mean by that is that it's not "white middle-class English."

I don't see how anyone is getting hurt by a person saying "ax" instead of "ask" or "liberry" instead of "library." It's as ludicrous as chastising Boston speakers for saying "ca-" instead of "car" or Southern speakers for saying "y'all" instead of "you/you all." Those pronunciations would be acceptable in all contexts--social, academic, business, public speeches, etc. So why insist that black children change their pronunciation? It just smacks of racism to me.

SDGundamX, i'm going to go out on a limb and say that those who pronounce car as 'ca' is because of their accent due to their geographical location, they are not changing the word into something else ... saying ax in place of ask (or my favorite: mines) is just poor english no matter where you are.