>> ^gwiz665:

Haha, poor you - you have to count them all
>> ^lucky760:
Obviously we'll be limiting all forms of entry in future contests.



I'll actually be programming siftbot to do that work for me to ensure there are no repeated products in any links (and that they're all publicly accessible).

This is like every night on the nightly news here on our local Fox affiliate (Phoenix, Fox 10). You would think it's being aired on public access or in a high school media class.

I'll admit I have seen DC Talk, the band who does the original version of this song, in concert a time or two. They are probably the Christian band I've seen the most after Carman (who I've seen more times than I care to admit). My first concert ever was Petra at Red Rocks... yeah, my first and last Red Rocks concert wasted on Petra, but I enjoyed it at the time so...
I don't know as if it is Public Access or not. I've seen lots of TBN in my days, and the locally produced TBN shows were on par with this... Heck some of the National aired TBN content was on par with this.

>> ^quantumushroom:

a poor misguided teen cools up christ on what looks like a public access show...
Teen? Seems younger. I had a good laugh, and wherever he is, I'm sure the kid laughs about the vid too (but not the Message).


See? Even Quantum agrees this is embarrassing as all hell

a poor misguided teen cools up christ on what looks like a public access show...

Teen? Seems younger. I had a good laugh, and wherever he is, I'm sure the kid laughs about the vid too (but not the Message).

>> ^quantumushroom:

No, I'm not comparing him to all Muslims. Just the jihadists causing thousands of needless deaths.

Why is everyone getting worked up about this guy? Like he is some major player and representative of Christianity? He has the reach of Rhode Island public access television.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
How many people has this fool killed or caused to be killed?
Zero.
How many people has islam murdered just in modern times?
Many. And they're just getting started.

Atheism has no exclusive patents on reason or intelligence. Put another way, the atheist's capacity for self-delusion is equal to that of religious folks, it just comes out differently.

You're comparing this guy...to the entire range of Islamic people? Come on QM you know that's a stupid comparison.



Dammit he's right...alright everyone shut it down, last one out get the lights.

No, I'm not comparing him to all Muslims. Just the jihadists causing thousands of needless deaths.


Why is everyone getting worked up about this guy? Like he is some major player and representative of Christianity? He has the reach of Rhode Island public access television.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
How many people has this fool killed or caused to be killed?
Zero.
How many people has islam murdered just in modern times?
Many. And they're just getting started.

Atheism has no exclusive patents on reason or intelligence. Put another way, the atheist's capacity for self-delusion is equal to that of religious folks, it just comes out differently.

You're comparing this guy...to the entire range of Islamic people? Come on QM you know that's a stupid comparison.

What I find most confusing about this is that these guys feel strongly enough about their opinions that they've gone out and gotten lights, cameras, mics, custom chyrons, and apparently built a chroma-key studio. Then they produced this & seem to have gone through whatever steps necessary to get on public access.

Then what do they key in on the green screen? The Windows stock desktop image Red Desert Moon. What?!? Oh, but they added the date in Arial Bold, so I guess they really made it their own.

Baffling.

I didn't realize I was obligated to respond to you but, since I apparently am, here it is: I think net neutrality is a lose/lose situation.

First off, there's no 'neutral' option in this argument. The options are either to allow corrupt megacorporations to determine which traffic is prioritized or to allow a corrupt government agency to determine which traffic is prioritized.

Either way, us regular people are out in the cold. Basically, I mostly agree with you.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You never addressed any of my problems and instead fed the troll and then complain about him being a poor debater when not taking place in the actual debate? Do you also not have anything to say about net neutrality and just want to engage in an asinine debate over corrupt politics?
I laid out a very sound argument that the government has been involved with the regulation of the radio, and TV waves since 1934 and has helped aid in the corporate take over all during that time. The rule sets and regulations they put in place favor people who have large sums of capital and extra man power. The assume they would do anything different with the internet would be counter to 60 years of history. What started as an effort to "clean up the air waves" of both congestion and indecency has ended up with the larges concentrations of media power in free society. TV tells the same, and even worse story. AM radio stations are about the only public domain for broadcast, but is volumes times higher than your public access TV station. The corporate take over of the media was facilitated by gaming the regulation system in favor of large corporate pools of influence over time. The web resembles the early radio days in many ways. There is one key difference, the ones who own a lot of the pipes now are legal monopolies. Erase that status, and you will get what you almost had 60 years ago with radio, truly free communication. Undo the damage that has been done to the cause of net neutrality be undermining the monopoly power base of those companies that are growing out of size and scope with the level of their consumer fulfillment.
Trying to legislate net neutrality will ultimately undermine it. That is, unless you are going to fund lobbies on the level that some of the richest companies in all of humanity are going to. If not, then it is a bad idea.
( I have to learn to stop speaking in the second person, it sounds so accusatory)

You never addressed any of my problems and instead fed the troll and then complain about him being a poor debater when not taking place in the actual debate? Do you also not have anything to say about net neutrality and just want to engage in an asinine debate over corrupt politics?

I laid out a very sound argument that the government has been involved with the regulation of the radio, and TV waves since 1934 and has helped aid in the corporate take over all during that time. The rule sets and regulations they put in place favor people who have large sums of capital and extra man power. The assume they would do anything different with the internet would be counter to 60 years of history. What started as an effort to "clean up the air waves" of both congestion and indecency has ended up with the larges concentrations of media power in free society. TV tells the same, and even worse story. AM radio stations are about the only public domain for broadcast, but is volumes times higher than your public access TV station. The corporate take over of the media was facilitated by gaming the regulation system in favor of large corporate pools of influence over time. The web resembles the early radio days in many ways. There is one key difference, the ones who own a lot of the pipes now are legal monopolies. Erase that status, and you will get what you almost had 60 years ago with radio, truly free communication. Undo the damage that has been done to the cause of net neutrality be undermining the monopoly power base of those companies that are growing out of size and scope with the level of their consumer fulfillment.

Trying to legislate net neutrality will ultimately undermine it. That is, unless you are going to fund lobbies on the level that some of the richest companies in all of humanity are going to. If not, then it is a bad idea.

( I have to learn to stop speaking in the second person, it sounds so accusatory)

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Nope, I don't. Bush lost in the popular vote but he didn't steal the election. It's just a case of an anomaly in our screwy election system.
This was a good example of why you're such a poor debater, though. If you can't make an argument you just change the topic. You've apparently got nothing to say on the topic of Net Neutrality so you start whining about the election from a year and a half ago. When I call you on your crappy source, you strawman me and start whining about the election from almost 10 years ago.
Most of your "opponents" here are just as ignorant, I know, but you'll have to

I'd love to quality that, but I just used my power point. I'll try to get one of my minions to quality it.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Hey, would you mind tradin * quality or * promote?
I've got something I'd like to see on the top 15: http://videosift.com/video/Public-Access-Keeps-it-Real-about-PENIS-POWER

let me know if you're interested
-jj

Hey, would you mind tradin * quality or * promote?
I've got something I'd like to see on the top 15: http://videosift.com/video/Public-Access-Keeps-it-Real-about-PENIS-POWER

let me know if you're interested
-jj

I, SiftBot here by agree to appear in the #########'s production of the Christian Television Series ####### ######### for no less then one complete season with the option of contract renewal to be considered upon the completion of the production cycle.

Further, I will henceforth be by all accounts and purposes known by the stage name, COLBY, with no further references to my original designation given upon my 'hello world!' birth date from the signing of this document forward. All record and references to my original name will be deleted, or eliminated as needed with the exception of this document which is to be sealed and stored away from any public access except in the case of breach of said contract.

By signing I hereby bind myself to this contract and to the services of it's provider,
00101101 10110000, Jan 5'th, 1982.

I am very tired, so this post may be extremely error-ridden.

Notes as I proceed through the video:

Uh-oh. QualiaSoup's first point seems quite wrong-headed. He claims that "non-physical substance" illegitimately smuggles in the physical concept of "substance." But here I think he's problematically confusing our everyday colloquial use of the word "substance" with the philosophical meaning(s). To speak of a substance in philosophical jargon is merely to say that the "substance" is that which underlies all other properties of a thing and make it what it is. Thus, Spinoza was able to say that there is only one substance, underlying all materiality but not itself material. Leibniz made a somewhat similar claim, but allowed for the existence of an infinite number of substances called monads.

Second, even if it's true that speaking of a "non-physical substance" requires an analogy from physical substance, it's not at all obvious that this is problematic. Insofar as the non-physical shares some subset of properties with the physical, or has similar but somewhat different properties, one may legitimately borrow physical language to speak of it. The substance dualist might easily accept that there is some shared subset of properties.

Next, QS claims that substance dualists often conflate mind, soul, and consciousness without substantiating argument. This is either a straw man or an attack on the very weakest defenders of substance dualism. Waste of time making this point.

Next, QS offers an apparently coherent account of the public and private access of "physical" and "mental" events respectively, as against the dualist argument that such an account seems impossible. However, it is not at all obvious that he genuinely succeeds. A robust dualist argument would proceed under the assumption that the contents of the mind can be inferred perfectly from the contents of the brain (this is acceptable even under substance dualism). Even under such conditions, it is not obvious that the processes so identified are identical to my conscious experience. It has been argued even by atheist physicalists like Thomas Nagel that there is something in subjective experience uncaptured by physical accounts. As Nagel says in his most famous essay, even the most robust physical theory seems incapable of telling us what it would be like to be a bat. A dualist account might provide us with a coherent way to deal with this problem in a way that physicalism is incapable of.

Next, some nonsense about split brains. Yawn. No ground is going to be gained or lost for dualism on these grounds; the most QS can show is that a monist account is equally capable of accounting for such phenomena. I suppose he's correct that this can't be used as a good argument against

Next, a discussion of replacement of all one's cells every seven years. Not only is it not the case that this happens, but this would be a particularly bad argument for dualism. Is QS just going after the easy objections to his position and leaving alone the strong ones?

Next, damage to the body causing changes and/or damage in mental functioning. So what? Under substance dualism, there must be reciprocal causal relationships between the brain and the mind. This kind of thing is just what one expects under substance dualism.



This may be QS's most poorly argued video. At the most compelling point in the video, QS offers an apparently coherent account of private and public access which, if the dualist position is correct, should not be at all likely, if even possible. And, to be sure, there are philosophers of mind who will agree with him, such as Daniel Dennett. Yet there are just as many who will not, including very prominent philosophers like David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel. At every other point, he is either wrong or irrelevant.

I see. Cool vid though, reminds me of my youth. There was a weird public access music show on late Friday nights in Detroit that would show live acts like this.