Don't try and pawn this off on me. It's not my "excuse". I'm closed only to one idea: of my being absolutely certain about anything. I'm not closed to any other idea, period. You have failed to convince me. That's why I don't accept your story. And after all this, you revealed yourself to be absolutely certain of your own judgement that your numinous experiences are coming from God.

All you're telling me is that you are convinced of something, and FWIW, I believe that you are. You have no grounds to believe that your human perceived conviction is warranted, especially given that you know of many other humans who are equally convicted about things that contradict what you believe. That alone should give you doubt about your convictions, as it gives me doubt. If it doesn't give you doubt, you're not being rational. What's more likely: that you alone are correct among all the millions of equally convicted people, or that all equally convicted people, including you, are wrong? What makes you so special?

I DO doubt my own existence -- at least, I don't take it as fact that I exist. I could be a brain in a vat, etc. I don't accept my own senses either as categorical evidence. I live as if they're accurate because it's instinctive and it serves me to do so. Skepticism is not ignorance. Accepting something absolutely and uncritically is ignorance. You expect me to accept your word on faith. Why should I believe you? You're just some random person on their internet soapbox who claims to have visions of god. See how stupid it would be for me to change my life because of that? You wouldn't.

You are certain about God's revelation to you because God has given you certainty of it. That's tautology, if you're a rational agent. You want God to be real so you deny all evidence even to other *possibilities*, let alone facts. I don't want anything in particular to be real. I only want to be as sure as possible of what I do believe. Yes, of course a god could convince you, but just because you're convinced, doesn't mean it was God who did it. That would be a faulty syllogism. Minds can play the most amazing tricks on people. That's documented fact.>> ^shinyblurry:

If that's the excuse you want to use, that's fine. I'm not saying I am infallible, I am saying God has made me certain. By myself, I wouldn't know what the truth is. The fact is, whether you like it or not, God can certainly give someone certain revelation. I have received such revelation and I am not the least bit uncertain about it. I would be a liar if I told you otherwise. Since your mind is entirely closed to the possibility, to you it seems absurd. That's because you have no experience of God and you live every day with uncertainty. You think this is somehow a redeeming quality to be uncertain, just as Richard Feynman does, but the truth is that this is actually ignorance, and it is not good to be ignorant. Unless you doubt your own existence, you consider yourself infallible on the subject of your own existence. Clearly, infallible knowledge is not a problem for you. This is why you didn't want to debate whether you could trust your own senses, because if you couldn't, then everything becomes absurd. You have to make that assumption otherwise you have nothing left to work with. This wasn't my point, however; I wasn't questioning your assumption, I was questioning your justification for the assumption. In any case, I am certain about Gods revelation to me, because He has given me certainty about it. It's not because of me, it's because of Him. If God couldn't give me such certainty, would He be God? No one in scripture who had encountered God ever had any doubts about whether He existed or not. Some Christians may have such doubts, but I do not. To me, it would be as absurd as doubting your own existence is to you.
>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
I don't admit any of those things; I have most definitely received revelation from God, and there is no other plausible explanation for the evidence
Then our conversations are done and you've been wasting my time. All this time you repeatedly accused me of not having an open mind, and it turns out you won't even admit that being human, you may be capable of error. If you'd identified yourself is infallible when this began, you could have saved me a lot of time. So much for civil discussion. I'm really pissed at you.

>> ^scannex:

Certainly didn't take you long to resort to personal attacks. Sorry I annoy you.
Congratulations, you annoy me.
1. Your connection is ridiculous. I must somehow be privileged or sexist to have this view?
2. I guess I cannot figure out your point, since I only directly dealt with #3 in your post it sure sounded like "because she cannot turn off being fat, its nothing like smoking". Your other points are you soapboxing about how you want the world to be and are not something I am likely to convince you about.
3. She needs to binge eat in front of the camera to draw the conclusion that she overeats? I completely disagree with you that SHE is in a situation where being overweight is a necessity.
A point I will concede to: It is WILDLY more expensive to healthily than to eat garbage. Being on a local TV program however makes me think she is likely able to afford healthier choices.
3b. Please feel free to provide some hard numbers on the incidence of genetic obesity
4. I redefined behavior following you redefining behavior as essentially a state one can inhibit in the presence of others. Obesity is a behavioral problem. Feel free to use meriam webster if that link is insufficient for you.
5. I didn't ignore 1, and 2 of your post I just didn't reply to it. I don't agree with you. Period. It is tangential to our argument and while valid arguments will further take it off topic.I will say that you ascribe such heightened value to everything it makes me think you are on the brink of a nervous breakdown.
6. What do I care if what she said was not reprehensible? To be blunt, she cites this as a bullying event. It isn't. That is inaccurate. Its becoming the first warcry of those with hurt feelings. My main problem with it is that doing this has the effect of DEVALUING the term, and often when that happens people become desensitized to it. Not every statement is bullying. Not everyone who hears a negative utterance was bullied.
7. One said wasn't saying Shh. One side was privately making a statment. Voicing an opinion, however dickish. Was it his place? Nope. Was it nice? Nope. Was it his right? Yes if you live in any of the 50 states it is his right. A lot of assholes do things with words, like the westboro baptist church and gay soldiers funerals. When it reaches a point of bullying things need to be done (and in the westboro case something WAS done to stop them). That's a good thing. That differentiation between systemic hatred and one guy writing an email NEEDS to be made clear.
Last to your example of Chris Christie, people are BRUTAL to that guy. He gets his share of mail I assure you. People give him shit for the exact same reason of being int he public eye as well. The sexist/privelaged thing is just wild speculation on your part that only makes an angry situation seem angrier. That says a lot about you and your mindset, too.
>> ^hpqp:

Words



It's a fair point to call me out on making presumptions about you and linking your comments to those I've been reading elsewhere; my apologies for that.

You cannot dissociate my first 2 points above from the third: you do not go telling strangers, even in a passive-aggressive way, that they are unfit to be in the public eye. For someone so quick to see personal attacks in comments about you, you seem rather impervious to those in the letter you defend (then again, 'tis true that I'm not very subtle when pissed). The real tangent, one I should probably not have given so much weight to, is whether or not obesity is something one can show/not show and induce simply by showing it (my argument remains valid, btw, it's just not so important as to repeat it all over, and your strawmen are so obvious as to no longer require pointing out).

Your point as I understand it is twofold: the letter-writer has a right to send the anchor his personal criticism and is right to do so. I only agree with the first part; he has a right to do so ((so long) as it is not harassment/threats), but she is also right to call him out for it, and point out that such behaviour is wrong, and that it participates in a culture that tolerates bullying, by letting people think it's fine to say whatever they think to whomever without questioning whether it might be hurtful or not. And nobody's saying that something like this is as bad as WBC-style bullying or systemic racist bs, just like nobody would argue that a female politician being meowed in a session by a colleague is as bad a case of sexism/misogyny as a continually harassed or beaten wife, for example. They are, however, on a spectrum with a unifying underlying belief, namely "I can and should voice my opinions/(dis)tastes about others without taking how it affects them into consideration (and society has nothing to say about it)".

The reason I projected the whole sexism/privilege thing on your comments is because they contain the same "it's harmless/no big deal" and "just poor me self-victimisation" and "what's with making a private event/exchange public?" and "you're trampling his rights!" dismissals. It was wrong of me to do so, but at least now you can understand why I did.

Speaking of projection, presumption and personal attacks, you sure are quick to jump to (and stick to) the conclusion that the anchor is overweight because she has poor lifestyle choices (the same assumptions behind the letter), which is why I (and @bmacs27) went on the tangent of "there's-more-to-obesity-than-being-a-lazy-junkfood-gobler". The assumption that an overweight person is that way because s/he choses so is insulting and ignorant in and of itself, the same way the GOP's "poor people are that way cuz they're lazy moochers who don't pull themselves up by the bootstraps" is.

As for Chris Christie, I refer to point 1) of my comment above: public denunciation all 'round!

I hope that has clarified my argument. Otherwise, I refer you to @Thumper's comments, less contentious than mine and with which I wholly agree.

Certainly didn't take you long to resort to personal attacks. Sorry I annoy you.
Congratulations, you annoy me.
1. Your connection is ridiculous. I must somehow be privileged or sexist to have this view?

2. I guess I cannot figure out your point, since I only directly dealt with #3 in your post it sure sounded like "because she cannot turn off being fat, its nothing like smoking". Your other points are you soapboxing about how you want the world to be and are not something I am likely to convince you about.

3. She needs to binge eat in front of the camera to draw the conclusion that she overeats? I completely disagree with you that SHE is in a situation where being overweight is a necessity.
A point I will concede to: It is WILDLY more expensive to healthily than to eat garbage. Being on a local TV program however makes me think she is likely able to afford healthier choices.
3b. Please feel free to provide some hard numbers on the incidence of genetic obesity

4. I redefined behavior following you redefining behavior as essentially a state one can inhibit in the presence of others. Obesity is a behavioral problem. Feel free to use meriam webster if that link is insufficient for you.

5. I didn't ignore 1, and 2 of your post I just didn't reply to it. I don't agree with you. Period. It is tangential to our argument and while valid arguments will further take it off topic.I will say that you ascribe such heightened value to everything it makes me think you are on the brink of a nervous breakdown.

6. What do I care if what she said was not reprehensible? To be blunt, she cites this as a bullying event. It isn't. That is inaccurate. Its becoming the first warcry of those with hurt feelings. My main problem with it is that doing this has the effect of DEVALUING the term, and often when that happens people become desensitized to it. Not every statement is bullying. Not everyone who hears a negative utterance was bullied.

7. One said wasn't saying Shh. One side was privately making a statment. Voicing an opinion, however dickish. Was it his place? Nope. Was it nice? Nope. Was it his right? Yes if you live in any of the 50 states it is his right. A lot of assholes do things with words, like the westboro baptist church and gay soldiers funerals. When it reaches a point of bullying things need to be done (and in the westboro case something WAS done to stop them). That's a good thing. That differentiation between systemic hatred and one guy writing an email NEEDS to be made clear.

Last to your example of Chris Christie, people are BRUTAL to that guy. He gets his share of mail I assure you. People give him shit for the exact same reason of being int he public eye as well. The sexist/privelaged thing is just wild speculation on your part that only makes an angry situation seem angrier. That says a lot about you and your mindset, too.

>> ^hpqp:

Words

Thanks for the promote.
In reply to this comment by LarsaruS:
This was a really good ranty bit. *Promote

>> ^scannex:

The normalization of obesity is a problem. The letter while technically unkind was done in a calm and constructive manner.
This woman IS in the public eye, and she does have the capacity to change her appearance.
People in this thread have drawn all sorts of parallels that just do not work, such as homosexuality.
A proper parallel would be something that is negative to her health, negative to the health of those that choose to follow her example, and something that is remediable...
Her obesity, by overwhelming odds is likely to be a behavioral issue, not a medical issue.
Therefore a more proper parallel would be her smoking while in front of the camera. Its not healthy, it is difficult but possible to modify the behavior, and it sets a poor example.
Do we bully people every time we tell them not to smoke? This woman did not appreciate being eluded to as fat. End of story, this guy wrote her a letter. He didn't soapbox in front of her kids school.


If millions lose weight by exercise and eating right and a few are clinically depressed because of it, I think that speaks to a psychological/neurological issue.

Or, they just haven't found the right foods to eat. I'd go insane if I ate rice cakes everyday, but it's not my body's fault that I'm depressed.

The normalization of obesity is a problem. The letter while technically unkind was done in a calm and constructive manner.
This woman IS in the public eye, and she does have the capacity to change her appearance.

People in this thread have drawn all sorts of parallels that just do not work, such as homosexuality.
A proper parallel would be something that is negative to her health, negative to the health of those that choose to follow her example, and something that is remediable...
Her obesity, by overwhelming odds is likely to be a behavioral issue, not a medical issue.

Therefore a more proper parallel would be her smoking while in front of the camera. Its not healthy, it is difficult but possible to modify the behavior, and it sets a poor example.
Do we bully people every time we tell them not to smoke? This woman did not appreciate being eluded to as fat. End of story, this guy wrote her a letter. He didn't soapbox in front of her kids school.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I liked the 2nd series.


You were wrong to like the 2nd series.

I don't understand why so many people are terrified of guns. They simply aren't scary. Up until the early 1900's, almost every family living in the US had a gun in the house. The United States wouldn't even exist if the colonials hadn't hidden and stockpiled their gun from the British as that was the first thing the British did when moving into a new town.....confiscating the guns. This emasculated the men, most volunteer "soldiers", and made revolt much less likely and population control much more manageable.

The 2nd amendment was created not for hunting or for sport, but for the civil defense of our citizens against tyranny and control. The authors of the constitution remembered how hard it was having weapons removed by government control and wanted to have measure in place to allow citizens to legally carry arms to defend themselves against similar actions in the future. It is a very empowering right.

In 2008, there were 75 deaths by firearm of children aged 1-15, 24 of which were actually suicides that were included in that gun death total. By contrast, 1,543 children of that same age group were killed in moving vehicle accidents and 735 by drowning. Therefore, we should be SIGNIFICANTLY more afraid of cars and pools than of guns by a wide margin, yet we don't have people calling the police because some kids are in a swimming pool or riding in a car.

Every male in Switzerland has a government issued semi-auto rifle. Literally every one (420,000+), yet they have some of the lowest crime rates in the entire world.

"Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms." - Wikipedia (of course)

My point is that guns are not inherently dangerous, significantly less in fact than a car or water statistically speaking. Having an armed society is a very good thing. Fearing people with guns only gives the gun power that it wouldn't have otherwise. Yes, there are shitty people out there doing bad things with guns, but I am more afraid of the distracted soccer mom in her minivan talking on the phone while beating her kids in the backseat while jugging a Starbucks latte driving 10 MPH over the limit (which I see all the time) than anyone carrying a gun. A good percentage of armed robberies aren't even committed with real guns, but the power that people without solid gun knowledge gives those guns, even fake, is what makes them dangerous.

Also, just an FYI, there are over 270,000,000 guns held by private citizens in this country yet 14,000 murders were committed by guns in 2010, and gun crime is down 11% since that time. That is a very low number of firearm murders considering how many guns are actually out there.

I am climbing off my soapbox now.

That was one of the charges, the consent one was a bit more serious. But yeah why not? It would be a very visble soapbox for him to shout his beliefs. The only problem of course is that it doesnt outweigh the freedom of Assange in his mind.

And of course theyre not going to invade an embassy. Thats what happens when you leave someone trying to grandstand in charge of the country when you go on holiday.

>> ^Mauru:

Sometimes, I catch myself thinking it would be a good thing if Assange faced a US court. The entire shabam would go up in smoke, a healthy prime-time debate about medial responsibilities, transparency and the judicial process of/with political prisoners in/around the united states would spawn...
...which far outweighs the personal freedom of one person...
-that's ususally the part where I wake up and shake the confetti out of frontal lobe.
BTW: Hey let's go invade an embassy so we can get some dude convicted of not using a condom in another country.

@Hive13 I'm kind of hoping that you're joking, because seriously, her drinking is not at issue here, the assault isn't even really at issue here, at issue here was someone (the defense lawyers, and the wording of the ruling out of the Jefferson District Court) of trying to tell the victim of sexual assault that she shouldn't talk about it. There's enough silencing happening around the issue of sexual assault without giving it the sanction of law.

If you want to talk about the assault, I think it should be fairly obvious that you can't give consent while unconscious (the sources I've read say that the assault happened after she passed out). If someone is too wasted to know what's up, then consent cannot be given, and the other partner would have to be really messed up to think that sort of behavior was OK. She didn't place the boys in that position, the boys did that to themselves - by assaulting her and taking pictures.

Slagging on this particular teen for doing something that is extremely common looks like an attempt to shame the victim. If you want to go moan about drinking at parties, find a different conversation -- here's one
http://videosift.com/video/Drinking-Culture-David-Mitchell-s-Soapbox

It's these sort of attacks on character that help a tiny number of men get away with a large number of sexual assaults, because their victims don't come forward (because of fear of being ostracized), aren't believed (you were drunk), or aren't prosecuted (it's just boys being assholes).

>> ^budzos:

It's funny because you think you're empathic and I'm sympathetic with bullies when really it's the other way around.
1. Enjoy sucking down the big corporate cock
2. I never said the shover was a victim. I'm saying it's not necessary to involve the police in something so trivial. It doesn't help anything. It's an overreaction. It's not justice. It just makes you feel better, or something.
3. Suck that dick




im gonna go find a kid wearing something all corporate like an Adidas shirt and kick them right in the face....cuz fuck the man. youre warped. seriously

the irony is youre shouting from your soapbox using internet provided by, likely, a major corporation, like cox, and likely, from a mac.

but please keep telling us how this man-baby is championing the anti corporate resistance by shoving a young girl and being an all around douche fuck

Your video, Ready To Order | David Mitchell's Soapbox, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 54 Badge!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'prevalent pointy footwear, fashion, design, trends' to 'prevalent pointy footwear, fashion, design, trends, mitchell, soapbox' - edited by my15minutes

>> ^Aziraphale:

Why isn't "david mitchells soapbox" in the tags?


Because it's in the title and will come up on the search already

Why isn't "david mitchells soapbox" in the tags?