And when they haul you into court after your little murder spree you can always just tell them it wasn't really you but an evil doppelganger from an alternate universe. They will of course present "evidence" like clothing fibers, hair samples and fingerprints but they couldn't possibly admit those things when they are based on something as flimsy as empirical observations.

Empirical observation is very powerful, and obviously very useful, and I am not casting any doubt on that. Empirical evidence is good enough for most things, but usefulness does not justify it as a standard for truth. If you want to say we must have empirical evidence for everything except for the idea that we need empirical evidence for everything, then this is what is known as special pleading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

My biggest problem with inductive reasoning argument is that really it's just a simple fuck you response. The sun has risen on this planet again and again for the last 4 billion years or so but because inductive reasoning states that past performance is not a reliable predictor for the future. Holy shit! I'd better get my affairs in order because there's probably not going to be a tomorrow.

The problem of induction is simply pointing out the lack of rationale for why there should be a uniformity in nature (the constancy of natural law). Science has no answer for it; should the problem be ignored in order that the assumption may be justified? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

By throwing in Inductive Reasoning, you are basically saying that nobody can ever really know anything, that religion and science are all the same, which I suspect is the true intent of the argument. I think some believe that if they can take science and reduce it to being just another "belief system" or "World View" then religion and science will be considered equally valid.

I think you're mistaking my position because I am not trying to equalize science and religion; I don't see any conflict between the two. In my worldview, everything that science does is completely justified. I can explain why there is uniformity in nature, and why empirical observation works and can be trusted. My worldview explains why we can know something to be true, and where our rationality comes from. The naturalistic/atheistic worldview can explain approximately none of these things. My argument, essentially, exposes the gaping holes of that position and the leaps of logic over those holes that must be made to justify it.

Empirical reasoning exists because we need some kind of shared standard for reality. Without that the court would have to acknowledge that your interpretation of reality (and that of your doppelganger) is as real and as valid as any scientifically produced evidence and you'd probably get away with murder.

So now, anytime you feel like you're losing an argument that involves scientific evidence you can just say "Inductive Reasoning" and you automatically win the argument.

Most of what I am called to do as a Christian is predicated in some way upon empirical observation. I am not challenging its usefulness at all; what I am really pointing out in this reply is that the problem of induction is only a problem for the atheist/agnostic and not the Christian.

What you seem to be saying here is that we must have a standard even if we can't explain it. If that is so, or even if it isn't, then I am here to tell you that we already have a standard given to us by the God who created you and me. He told us directly what this standard was when He sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world to die for our sins. The standard is Jesus Christ Himself, who said He is the way the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father but by Him. What He told us is that we must repent of our sins and believe on Him for forgiveness of our sins and that when we do we will be forgiven and receive eternal life.

And when they haul you into court after your little murder spree you can always just tell them it wasn't really you but an evil doppelganger from an alternate universe. They will of course present "evidence" like clothing fibers, hair samples and fingerprints but they couldn't possibly admit those things when they are based on something as flimsy as empirical observations.

My biggest problem with inductive reasoning argument is that really it's just a simple fuck you response. The sun has risen on this planet again and again for the last 4 billion years or so but because inductive reasoning states that past performance is not a reliable predictor for the future. Holy shit! I'd better get my affairs in order because there's probably not going to be a tomorrow.

By throwing in Inductive Reasoning, you are basically saying that nobody can ever really know anything, that religion and science are all the same, which I suspect is the true intent of the argument. I think some believe that if they can take science and reduce it to being just another "belief system" or "World View" then religion and science will be considered equally valid.

Empirical reasoning exists because we need some kind of shared standard for reality. Without that the court would have to acknowledge that your interpretation of reality (and that of your doppelganger) is as real and as valid as any scientifically produced evidence and you'd probably get away with murder.

So now, anytime you feel like you're losing an argument that involves scientific evidence you can just say "Inductive Reasoning" and you automatically win the argument.

Yea, at the very least we've always known "they're all the same".

any creator who only reveals himself to certain people and not others is a dick and not worth following or caring about. Any person who "thinks" god has been revealed to them and uses that as an assertion of authority over those who haven't had similar "revelations" are not just dicks, they deserve to be locked up.

I'm still ignoring shiny but I'm assuming he's making all the same tired arguments about god revealing himself as he always does. I'm sure he's also still quoting the bible as an authoritative source.

As Matt has continued to point out, secular morality has proven itself better than biblical morality.

God and religion are two separate things. always have, always will be. The question of the existence of a creator is largely irrelevant. If a creator exists and I'm doing things contrary to what this creator wishes me to do, tough. If this creator has a problem with it, it can come down here and tell me directly instead of using a ancient book as it's main source of communication. God is either a dick or incompetent for using such an inefficient means of communicating its wishes. Even if a creator did manifest itself physically and declared its undisputed existence, this creator would have a lot of angry people (and that includes people who DO believe in a creator) on its hands demanding some answers and rightfully so. The threat of eternal damnation just really isn't that effective of a means of ensuring compliance. Again. secular morality beats biblical morality.

Even if a creator does not exist it still doesn't change anything. Even if it was possible to scientifically prove a creator doesn't exist. It doesn't change shit. Countless people will still continue believing it. A creator may not exist, but Religion ain't going anywhere for a long time. There isn't a magic set of words that magically convince someone to not believe in an imaginary god. This ain't the TV show Stargate and there is no "Ark of Truth" and in my opinion, it would be immoral to use such a device if it existed. (great googely boogely that was such a horrible tv movie).

If we want a free society, people have to make their own conclusions. By and large, all atheists and agnostics support Freedom of Religion. They just want religion out of government. You can be religious, but government has to be secular.

science is agnostic to the existence of a creator. It doesn't care if a creator exists. If the evidence is there. then the evidence will point to it. If there is no evidence then it doesn't exist. Even if there is evidence and we just haven't found it yet, we still have to err on the side treating it as if it doesn't exist. Theists make the claim the a creator exists. You have to back that shit up. The burden is on you to prove it exists. Not only that, but you have a double burden. Not only do you have to prove a creator exists, you have prove that this creator wants you to do X, Y, and Z. None of which has been done.

And guess what, not all atheists/agnostics believe/disbelieve the same thing. just because you trot out some non-believer that says things that other non-believers don't agree with doesn't mean a thing. Yeah, atheists and agnostics like to squabble over the definitions of atheist and agnostic and the myriad of combinations of both words. So what? it doesn't remove the theist's double burden of proof, Yes, there are some atheists out there who don't just want separation of church and state, they would eliminate all forms of religion if they could. Shock, someone in a group is taking things a little far. ZOMG! THAT NEVER HAPPENS ANYWHERE!! It STILL doesn't remove the theist's double burden of proof.

Matt has argued this countless times. you make a claim? you gotta back it up. You may wish to quibble over the semantics of what an atheist is or isn't. I too don't strictly agree with his definition of atheism. But he has declared his views on the subject countless times: He used to be a Christian, but he decided that he needed to know that what he was preaching was actually rational and Christianity could not meet the burden of proof in his eyes. So he is not making the claim that god doesn't exist, because he cannot prove that. The problem is, Christians, or any other religion for that matter cannot prove any of their claims either, thus, there is no reason to believe them or consider them trustworthy.

You want to quibble over whether or not that's an atheist or an agnostic, be my fucking guest but it's just a distraction that doesn't change the end result. Matt (and myself) do not accept the claim that a creator exists, nor do we accept the claim that even if a creator exists, that this creator follows the Christian belief system (or any other belief system for that matter). And the reason that we can't accept any of these claims is because of the lack of evidence and not meeting the burden of proof

Fine. You've made me put my physics hat on:

The pitch is determined not by the surface area of the water, but by the surface area of empty portion of the glass. Since his glasses bow out then taper in, some glasses would end up with a greater surface area of water if some evaporated, and some with less, so the relative rates of evaporation would not be in sync. Also, it seems no two glasses are the same shape, so even if they were all the same note to begin with, evaporation and pitch change would not be even.

Welcome to Ameriguns!
Puns set aside..
You all seem to miss (If my short memory recalls correct) that the old man was a vietnam vet. So he's probably not dera.. oh wait no war can quite fuck you up, and make you paranoid. And he was old, oh.. probably not a suitable gun owner. And he used to shoot foreigners like them in his youth so perhaps it was a "flashback" moment he had and just pulled the trigger.
Blahblah, I would more like to reply to dirk.
1. Emergencies requires speed. (That inclued both ambulance & private)
2: I think the discussion to regulate torque/horsepower has come up somewhere before. But if you think long about it.. it ends up quite uneccesary (if you follow the next points) to limit this
2.1 Just see to the whole history and scale of motor vehicles. There's probably alot of engineering, problem of controlling, bad fuel consumtion (low gear vs high gears etc) that makes implementation of limits a bad idea. Cars are, much more than guns, an actual symbol of mans (modern) freedom. Freedom to travel, move, explore and work, transport and evolve. It's also a passion for so many people. Racing and amateur racing.
2.2 So no chance people would obey or accept somthing limiting their horsepowers.
2.3 Not really a big problem. Yes, some people speed and some die as a result. Atleast to be qualified for a license you HAVE to learn, pass an exam and have a license.
2.4 The US state does alot to "nanny" the traffic and highways already.
-----Reply to your second segment----
First I think comparing guns to any other item of possesion is just going down a route of stupid argumentation. I'd rather see 99% of all arguments and discussion stay on-topic instead oft taking the try-to-win-a--point-with-farfetched-comparisons turn.
But. Already said, vehicles and cars most often requires licenses, are monitored, regulated, taxed and enforced etc. Also, could I turn this steak over 180? As cars are taxed, registries are of them and police can force you to show license/revoke/stop you when drunk etc. Shouldn't all the same things they do here also apply to guns?
--Third segment--
A. Removing all guns would be great, but not possible as that just is not the world we live in (Or as for USA, the country they live in). So the question is rather: Who shall be allowed to buy them? B (to answer the actual and sole question I could read): They Kill people, alot easier than cars (and what dangerous hobbies are you thinking of?), so we are less inclined to ban fast cars. But sure, we could ban fast cars as well, which leads to
C: Invalid argument. Let's just say the actual sequence of events would be: "Yes, now we are banning guns, and you are right about fast cars as well. They are to be forbidden next month. Oh, I see some argue that if no fast cars, then why sharp knives - they kill as well. That's correct, next month they will be banned as well." And then it just rolls on.. down to forks and metal cutlery. See the fallacy?
--Final part--
I'm not going into what I believe a state should, or should not do. And how ignorant and missing the point of the point of having a state in the first place, there is to ... saying that it should either completely be THIS - or completely do THAT. It's not a do-or-don't; black-and-white way, that state, laws and regulations work (or is meant to work).
I will go on your "OR we have to accept" since that's more sensible way to have a society. Then I have
To be clear: My opinion is that I see no point in civilian ownership of HIGHLY lethal weaponry. Guns are not comparable to anything else (almost) that exists. Everything else that is as potentially lethal is already forbidden or reduced. A gun can so ridiculously easy destroy so much, so fast. I simply see no point in any-one and everyone able to own one. Yes, hunters (limited to rifles) and hobby marksmen (limited to X mm gun/rifle - controlled and licensed and trackable etc) I believe should be able to use or practice their livelyhood or passion. But as easily as it is now, no way.

---
I think alot of this problem is simply the fact that it's written clearn in your constitution - the right to bear arms. Was written very long ago, or more so: so much has gone so fast and evolved since then. It's not a necessity now; as it was then, they were sure not as effective then as now, and several other things that has evolved and made the reasons for bearing arms (lacking a huge law enforcement agencies as no#1) seem good then: just be stupid theese days.

the description kinda gave it away for me

Funny all the same though!

only four chords man - they are all the same song so they mix well together

Thanks for that I'd sussed it out but am relieved all the same to see that the top videos expiring soon list has been restored to VideoSift

I'm not sure what to think about this. Arguing where some religious event is going to take place is pretty fucking stupid in my book. Romney seems to believe what he says so I can't really find any fault there. It's religion though so IMO it's the equivalent of arguing whether or not Mr. Snuffleuppagus is real or imaginary...he's still a fictional character so it doesn't fucking matter.

It just doesn't matter to me what religion Romney is. It's all the same bullshit to me.

Yes. Right wing American capitalist fundamentalists (The Koch Brothers, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard) redefined the term in the 1970s to reflect both corporatist and neo-confederate values respectively.

The so-called "libertarians" of today want to reset the clock on civil rights, labor rights, social welfare and democracy, favoring instead a complete removal of all barriers to corporate power. They may or may not be well intended, but their deceptively authoritarian movement is an affront to liberty all the same, and should be treated as such. >> ^grinter:

"Liberty slows down"?
..did someone redefine "liberty" when I wasn't looking?

Yes, you're missing my point entirely.
She prevents the court from subpoenaing her google searches. What if said searches indicate that she was, in fact, seeking said experience? At what point are said searches immaterial in a court of law? >> ^bareboards2:

@Trancecoach -- you get that is this victim blaming, right? An interest in bondage et al does not mean you are consenting to being raped and beaten. Just as going to his house, which is a dumb move, doesn't mean you deserve what happens. Or wearing a short skirt. This is all the same thing -- be careful, or it is your fault.
The guy was a professional, he is good looking, I'll bet he was charming. There are loads of one night stands out there that take one of each gender (on average!) that don't end in rape.
Especially nowadays -- Fifty Shades of Gray, an apparently terribly written book, is the best selling book of all time. So if you have read that, you better not go to a stranger's house?
Am I missing your point? I feel like I might be missing your point...

@Trancecoach -- you get that is this victim blaming, right? An interest in bondage et al does not mean you are consenting to being raped and beaten. Just as going to his house, which is a dumb move, doesn't mean you deserve what happens. Or wearing a short skirt. This is all the same thing -- be careful, or it is your fault.

The guy was a professional, he is good looking, I'll bet he was charming. There are loads of one night stands out there that take one of each gender (on average!) that don't end in rape.

Especially nowadays -- Fifty Shades of Gray, an apparently terribly written book, is the best selling book of all time. So if you have read that, you better not go to a stranger's house?

Am I missing your point? I feel like I might be missing your point...

Eric3579 somehow got the lyrics:

When I was in the 3rd grade
I thought that I was gay
Cause I could draw, my uncle was
And I kept my room straight
I told my mom, tears rushing down my face
She's like, "Ben you've loved girls since before pre-K"
Trippin', yeah, I guess she had a point, didn't she
A bunch of stereotypes all in my head
I remember doing the math like
"Yeah, I'm good a little league"
A pre-conceived idea of what it all meant
For those who like the same sex had the characteristics
The right-wing conservatives think its a decision
And you can be cured with some treatment and religion
Man-made, rewiring of a pre-disposition
Playing God
Ahh nah, here we go
America the brave
Still fears what we don't know
And God loves all His childrenIs somehow forgotten
But we paraphrase a book written
3,500 hundred years ago
I don't know

[Hook: Mary Lambert]
And I can't change
Even if I tried
Even if I wanted to
And I can't change
Even if I tried
Even if I wanted to
My love, my love, my love
She keeps me warm [x4]

[Verse 2: Macklemore]
If I was gay
I would think hip-hop hates me
Have you read the YouTube comments lately
"Man that's gay"
Gets dropped on the daily
We've become so numb to what we're sayin'
Our culture founded from oppression
Yeah, we don't have acceptance for 'em
Call each other faggots
Behind the keys of a message board
A word routed in hate
Yet our genre still ignores it
Gay is synonymous with the lesser
It's the same hate that's caused wars from religion
Gender to skin color
Complexion of your pigment
The same fight that lead people to walk-outs and sit-ins
Human rights for everybody
There is no difference
Live on! And be yourself!
When I was in church
They taught me something else
If you preach hate at the service
Those words aren't anointed
And that Holy Water
That you soak in
Is then poisoned
When everyone else
Is more comfortable
Remaining voiceless
Rather than fighting for humans
That have had their rights stolen
I might not be the same
But that's not important
No freedom 'til we're equal
Damn right I support it
[Trombone]
I don't know

[Hook: Mary Lambert]

[Verse 3: Macklemore]
We press play
Don't press pause
Progress, march on!
With a veil over our eyes
We turn our back on the cause
'Till the day
That my uncles can united by law
Kids are walkin' around the hallway
Plagued by pain in their heart
A world so hateful
Someone would rather die
Than be who they are
And a certificate on paper
Isn't gonna solve it all
But it's a damn good place to start
No law's gonna change us
We have to change us
Whatever god you believe in
We come from the same one
Strip away the fear
Underneath it's all the same love
About time that we raised up

[Hook: Mary Lambert]

[Outro: Mary Lambert]
Love is patient, love is kind
Love is patient (not cryin' on Sundays)
Love is kind (not crying on Sundays)