Let me take a few moments to peruse some of your comments from past belchings, and throw your ass on the chopping-block as well...


'Cry racist, ARE Racist'.

Where are you from and what the fuck do you do here with spit-pop now but tattle-tale (feelings hurt) tattle-tale, hanging britches on the fucking CROSS?! Chime-in with an adequate response, or troll-in with a back-door message to an admin who could sincerely give, but feels he has to, a fuck?

I am seriously tired of being accused of bullshit of which I know is founded in dysfunction of another form strikingly similar to the accusations made against me.

Show me a Japanese member of this site or another head-in-ass whitey who is offended by my comment, and I'll show you no one. The ONLY Japanese(Canadian) artist who has ever been a member of this site, whose back I have had through promotes, support, entreats that she return, etc, etc, etc-fucking-cetera, left a long time ago because of the shit-think here, namely the lack of soul in my estimation.....
You Are WRONG, SDGundamX and Dag, so please, check that shit??


FUCK ME!

"on this one because I don't think comments like this are what the Sift is about."..'I don't think', may be your problem-Think again and maybe adjust a bit before you get too worked-up???

I'm sorry, I used to think that way too, but it's just not so.

You're confusing atheism with anti-theism. You're stuck in a "if you're not with me, you must be against me" binary mentality. The lack of (or being without by your definition) something is not equivalent to being opposed to something. Bald is not a hair color

As for your argument about "New Atheists," you're just creating a strawman. Never claimed anything about agnostics, especially nothing as derogatory as you seem to be implying.

It can be argued that everyone is agnostic since no one knows with certainty of the existence of a creator. People claim to have faith, but by definition, that's believing without proof so that doesn't hold up as "knowing" People also claim to "know" but their evidence never holds up beyond human conceit.

That's why I mentioned Grimm in my last post, we were talking about this subject on another sift, the mis-communication of what Atheism is. There's that tired theist claim that Atheists hate god. well you can't hate something if you don't have evidence that it exists.

An atheist is not in opposition to a creator, it's just that there is no proof and every claim out there so far can pretty much be summed up as human conceit. An atheist would probably be excited to find proof as it would expand on our understanding and thus, improve science even more.

Why would I?? Because after i was banned as choggie I was canned with no recourse but to lurk and read the COMPLETE HORSESHIT the mob talked about me with me having no way to defend myself...I was righteously pissed. You obviously are not a student of history here, i don't forget shit, but I DO FORGIVE.

Plus, the sift needs a douche of all the wholesale crap that got posted during that bogus election, and I'd love to see the AWOL unseated from prominent places.....get some perspective instead of talking more shit perhaps>???

How about cleaning up some tired dead rhetoric on the sift and gang-up on someone who isn't sincere, thoughtful, and full of empathy.\??
TO answer your question directly Sarzy, "Because I CAN and will to do so.

I miss a lotta folk here, especially the ones who slinked-off after they fired-up torches against me and then passive-aggressively bailed when I was allowed to return..Believe me, i extended olive branches to some of the worst of offenders here. ...and they call ME a hater-

NR admitted he was shill....and I have made ammends with his old-lady

Yo u need some context before you startin' with the same program...I love everybody, it simply looks like shit to some.

Can't stand pep-rally mentalities, and won't suffer charlatans with a single program.

That's why-

Ok-Does not fit the conventional MO of dancing dude, or he's got the cover-but his wifes' a, HELLO?? Exotic dancer (or formerly)!??
Exotic dancer=/=costume designer??

You miss Lann, simply have a problem with convenient stereotypes relative to appearances and have never entertained the veracity of the adage, "If it looks and quacks like a duck", riding a personal grudge against me tinctured with an incapacity or unwillingness to kill your own ego.

I could give a damn about the guy's sexuality, he tears up the "stripper pole" with aplomb, and his exotic dancer wife makes stellar costumes. What's yer beef if not well-done-to-charred?

Sorry if my response isn't up to your impeccable standards, but A) I don't have to justify my reasons for the videos I Sift because B) I'm not your monkey. And C) you turned the discussion back on me and D) made personal attacks against me instead of the argument.

You want to debate or discuss things like an adult, I'll discuss things with you like one. You want to devolve into a petulant fourth grader on here, you get the butthurt comments.

i dont pay taxes.
i refused ten years ago and have stuck with that path.
and its been sunshine and rainbows ever since....
ok..not really.my income is severely crippled due to me not paying taxes BUT goddamn does it make me feel good!

i do not pay taxes not to be a cheap ass but rather to protest a system that is so obviously rigged against me.(and you).

as for american libertarianism.
i will say they have the civil rights down.
i totally agree with their philosophy of personal liberty and right to do whatever you want as long as you aint stepping on another blokes shoes.

but when they start with the "free market" sermons i start to look at them as wide-eyed and innocent children.
do they not SEE whats going on?
free market?
what is this free market you speak of?
america is NOT a free market.
it is corporate socialism.
or welfare if you want to troll a bit.

go ahead and de-regulate corporate america.
see what happens.
better yet,just look at some african nations,or former soviet states.
guilded estates with private armies for the uber-wealthy and elite while the majority of the population live in either indentured servitude or total squalor.

i am noticing a disturbing trend here in america.its like they are preparing.
we have a government bought and paid for by corporate america,which does the corporations bidding.
the co-opting of the tea party and the crushing of occupy.
a massive surveillance operation.
militarized police forces across the country.
civil liberties made into mere "suggestions" and no longer inalienable.
executions of american citizens with no due process (bye bye habeas corpus).
a standing army that has been in place for over 60 years and a war on terror that will never end.

it is madness.

so i cannot blame my libertarian friends for calling for smaller government.
because the government has become TOO big and no longer is "for the people,by the people".
it serves its corporate masters.
which is why the "de-regulate" argument truly baffles me.

just as my liberal friends who wish to use the system to correct these imbalances.
what?
the system is utterly BROKEN.
we no longer have a functioning democracy!
why would you even suggest to use a system that threw us all overboard to lick the boots of their masters 30 yrs ago?
the mind..it boggles.

every political philosophy has its flaws.none are perfect.
libertarianism has some very good points while others are a bit...naive in my opinion.

for me the end result is this:
i do not trust power nor authority because i find them to be illegitimate until they prove themselves otherwise.
so i am suspicious when someone tries to force their authority on me based on arbitrary and subjective parameters.(like a cop,or judge or some rich dude).

i am a humanist by nature so my political philosophy flows from that birthplace.
i will never step on you to further my career nor take food out of your mouth.
corporate america has spread a propaganda campaign that is insidious.

capitalism is good.
greed is good.
dog eat dog world out there.
here,buy this,it will make you feel better.
wear that and you will be sexy.
you are lone wolf,against the world,drive this car you lone wolf and be a rebel.

its all bullshit.
human beings feel better when they are co-operating.
when they feel their life has purpose and that they are needed.
not by living in a perpetual 7 yr olds wet dream.

oh
my
god.
you fuckers got me ranting!
i hate you both......
/drops mic

@JiggaJonson, you seem like a fun person to be around in real life. Just an all around treat. And, by the way, your argument is personal against me, not against the argument in the video. They have a word for that.

interesting, I agree this video needs context. Also the guy should have just cooperated with the officers and went outside - why unnecessarily provoke a situation like this when it could most likely be better resolved through cooperation?

I am however curious where the line is drawn with these sorts of calls and the laws allowing police to enter regardless of warrant. Obviously the police should have some authority to enter - many violent crimes take place inside homes, and they should have the authority to enter to prevent these crimes given reasonable suspicion - but where do we draw the line? I once was up late with some friends at our place, and we saw the police at a house next door. They saw we were up, came over, and asked us if we knew our neighbour (which we didn't) or had any information about whether or not he might have been inside because someone called in worried that the guy was going to kill himself. The police eventually left without breaking in the door. I think they were right in doing so in this situation.

but it's such a tough situation.. In the end, I think if there was a violent crime taking place against me in my home, which perhaps was called in by someone else who heard the noise, I would gladly forfeit my privacy and the cost of new hinges for my door for my own safety. I would want the police to enter, even if the perpetrator was yelling about police states and so forth... I would assume that most victims might also opt for this, which is why we allow police some discretion in these circumstances.

And thank you for not holding my own mean sarcasms against me.

Good conversation points Yogi.

Hurting people isn't a freedom of speech issue. He stalked her and tormented her. If he'd done it by distributing flyers it would still be criminal, not protected speech.

I don't think that vigilantism is justice, but when someone does something bad to someone else, IMO they give up the expectation that others won't do that same thing to them. In other words, while I wouldn't be the one who maliciously distributes his info, he has to accept that it's fair by virtue of his own actions.

Thanks for being honest and open about your feelings relating to judgement of her suicide. You've made most of my argument for me already, but I'll add a couple things. First, you say, "... I don't think words is a good enough reason." You say it like words are just painless electric signals produced in our brains from oscillations of our eardrums, and so shouldn't cause anxiety. I can't disagree more. I was bullied as a kid for two years, and looking back, I'm really thankful that it was almost all physical and exclusion. It hurt, and I felt powerless, but the people bullying me didn't spend a lot of effort attacking my character aside from calling me fag. They also didn't begin to ruin my social life by turning entire schools against me, even after moving. And even if it weren't that severe, to a teenager, any words that contain some ring of truth will stick. And teens are extremely self-conscious, so anything negative they will accept as probably accurate.

Second, you say, "...without good reason". The word "good" is itself a judgement. That guy told Amanda since she was 12 that she was never going to have any friends, and he had made sure of it. She had never known any other social reality, and it seemed like the torment was literally going to last forever. To a bullied 15-year-old, the time when things will be better is probably four years away. To me that's nothing, probably you neither. I'm going to be 40 in four years, and it feels like it's next door. Yet for me at 15, 19 was an imaginary concept. Having no friends at 15, in our primitive brains, equals certain death. It wasn't a logical decision any more than hooking up with some guy with a girlfriend who said he liked her.

Finally, and this isn't my strongest point here, you say that you went through hard times and never thought suicide was the answer. For you. You're not the yardstick the rest of the world is measured by. I could equally ask you why you didn't kill yourself when clearly Amanda thought it was the answer. People are just different.

Less to argue with you, and more to move along your internal debate.

As for me, I'm not exactly settled in my full opinion, but I can say I respect the decision to commit suicide. This article by Michael Landsberg about his friend, hockey player Wade Belak's suicide was formative for me. In it he says, "People kill themselves when the fear of living another moment outweighs the fear of dying at that moment." People with loving young families and without any "obvious" problems find reason to kill themselves. I have to acknowledge that reality in any personal opinion of suicide.>> ^Yogi:

This is a very sticky subject especially if you don't understand all the nuance. I mean it's about freedom or speech which Americans cherish rightly but it's also about not acting like a complete dick, which it seems most Americans still cherish. Now tormenting or abuse I think is much different than me coming on here and telling @Sagemind to go kill himself because he smells.
I'm not sure if I agree with Anon releasing this persons info either. Maybe it makes you feel good in the revenge center but is that really how we want justice to work?
Personally I also have an issue with someone who committed suicide. I'm still exploring it because I don't think it's right for me to tell someone how they should react to things, especially when given differences in upbringing or simple brain chemistry. I guess I'll just say that I think suicide is quitting, I don't like it and I don't really respect people that do it without good reason, and I don't think words is a good enough reason. This is my experience from my life of horror and feeling like utter shit a lot of the time. I never thought that ending it would be an answer and I don't necessarily understand those that do. Sorry I didn't want to cede the intellectual ground but I felt I had to be honest and maybe that'll start a conversation about how other people feel about people who commit suicide.

I cut out the words you don’t entirely agree with. The rest of my comment is all about our perception of you. That should be important to you if you think God wants you to talk to us and, one assumes, help us learn something. Right? Is that a consideration for you at all?

Sure, and I fully admit I have turned a blind eye to this in the past. I should have been more sensitive to peoples concerns than I have been. I'm sure I've wasted many opportunities with people here as Satan hoped I would. It's been a process of growth and maturity in my walk with Christ, and this will continue until the day I die.

If I decided it was my civic duty to start showing up at a certain church and talk atheism to the parishioners, I would expect resistance, of course. I would pay very strong attention to how people were reacting to me and what topics or phrases or types of argument were setting people against me, and see if I could understand their perspective and adjust the way I spoke to help them understand me more. In that scenario, my goals for being at the church are different from the parishioners' goals, and since their goals for being there could be fulfilled (perhaps better) by ignoring me and by my being quiet, I’m the one who has to make the effort if I want to engage them.

I agree with you here.

That’s what I meant by "uninvited". It doesn’t mean anyone requires an invitation to join the Sift, or that anybody expects you to leave. It means nobody asked you to come and explain the "truth" of things to us. Our goal here is to kill time, follow political stories, discuss topics of interest to us and generally enjoy ourselves. Your goal here, however vague, is different from our goals, and often in conflict with them. I was enjoying thinking about Feynman’s points, then you come in with your arrogant opener, "It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it." Read it again to yourself. How would you react? Take @Quboid’s initial comments seriously too. Don’t nitpick phraseology like "pushing people away from your belief." Look past what you disagree with and address the real content. It's respectfully written and a valid question.

Well, the difference here on the sift is that it is not by default a place for atheists to hang out. It's a place for anyone to hang out and share their videos and opinions. It just so happens it has attracted a lot more atheists than theists and so everything done on the sift is bent towards their worldview, including the videos and conversations. You're right that nobody asked me to come, but I didn't need an invitation either. If you look at any video on religion here, people feel free to speak their mind about Christianity and Christians but for some reason they take exception when I do the same. I understand what your argument is about and what you're saying, which I appreciate and recognize as being essentially valid, but your comment about being uninvited doesn't apply. Atheists run the sift but the sift wasn't created for them.

And I'm actually saying this selfishly because I do want to understand what you’re saying.

And FWIW, everyone sees everyone through a funhouse mirror, especially types we don’t have a lot of contact with and don’t understand. For us, yep, that’s you.

Yes, I see people through my presuppositions. My worldview is the biblical worldview. I do understand you because I used to be in your shoes. I'm sure some of you will say the same thing.

I can provide evidence for any claim I make, if you ask for it. Find the body of Jesus? Don't be ridiculous. How could we? And if someone found the body of Jesus, you'd use bogus science to claim we hadn't proven it to be his, just like you still use bogus science to claim the universe is less than 10,000 years old or that macroevolution is a myth. I routinely claim the Bible is falsifiable on its face, but every time someone falsifies it, you change the meaning of the words, claim it's a metaphor, or do some other dodge, like how you handled the discrepancy between an omniscient God and a God who is surprised to discover that Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit.

Now you're just using fallacious arguments. Why don't you present your very best argument as to what you think falsifies the bible and let's see if it holds any water?

In the example of God being surprised, it is you who are assuming God was surprised. The text doesn't say He was surprised, it only says He asked Adam and Eve what they did. Why do you think that means that God didn't know what they did? How many parents have you heard asking their children whether they did such and such knowing full well that they did do it? That's exactly what God was doing.

OK. Here's the most clear-cut contradiction I’ve come across in the Bible. The topic seems so petty it's almost embarrassing to use it, but compare Matthew 1:8-9 with 1Chronicles 3:10-13. They give incompatible lineages from Joram to Joatham.

The genealogy in Matthew 1:8-9 isn't meant to be a complete record. It is actually a style of writing in Hebrew which is more concerned with symmetry than accuracy. That is why there are 3 groups of exactly 14 generations. Matthew would have assumed that his audience would know the details he left out for the sake of symmetry.

You pulled this out of thin air. Are your answers here divinely inspired?

We can scientifically test for, find and measure the efficacy of self-prayer. It's only prayer for others that consistently has no measurable effect. Science can and does test and prove some prayer effective, so you can't hold that God will not be tested. I've just disproven that.

So I'll ask you again: considering that we can reliably measure the effectiveness of self-prayer, why can't we measure any effects from intercessory prayer on behalf of others?

I didn't pull it out of thin air. Scripture says do not test the Lord thy God. You haven't proven anything. God will not let you test Him with personal prayer any more than He will let you test Him through the prayers of others. Scripture says God doesn't answer prayers that aren't prayed in faith, so when you are praying just to test Him, you aren't going to get proof He is there. Although there is one test I think God will accept. If you prayed this prayer I think He would answer it:

"God....if Jesus is your Son and He really is the way....and if He really is everything the Bible says about Him....then I will follow Him"

>> ^messenger:
stuff

I'll say a little bit about my experience here, since you brought it up @ZappaDanMan. The reason I signed up to videosift, initially, was to provide a counterpoint to the enormous amount of anti-christian videos I noticed being propelled into the top 15. There was no one here representing the other side of the argument, or posting any Christian videos, so I figured I would be that guy. However, I quickly found out that I was pretty unwelcome here, except, that is, for a few important exceptions. One is @dag. Dag has commented many times that he feels I am a valuable member of the community. Perhaps he recognizes the pitfalls of a lack of diversity in the sift economy. Quite often the comment sections, at least for anything related to religion, are echo chambers for militant anti-theists. That isn't a good thing if you want to have a broad-based appeal.

There are some individual users who have reached out to me, some openly like @enoch, most though in secret. The reason being is because from the beginning there was a concerted campaign to try to get rid of me. The first strategy was to downvote all of my videos and comments and deny my participation in the system. I am sure I am the most downvoted user of all the time. Can anyone (@lucky760) track that? There was a time when I couldn't get a video to last more than half a day. It wasn't because of the nonsense people are posting in this thread, it was because there was a group of people working against me to kill them all off. I have 18 discarded videos in my discarded posts folder. Granted not all of them were that great, but some were sincerely good. Can anyone else claim a number like that? I doubt it, because people don't generally treat eachother like that here.

When that didn't work there was another campaign waged to totally marginalize me by labeling me as a troll. Many people put me on ignore and advised others to do the same. I felt like I had entered into an Amish community and advised them to use zippers instead of buttons. That actually worked because at some point I decided to leave and stopped posting for awhile. I couldn't get any videos published, and every time I posted anywhere people would insult me, or ignore me. It was only because a few people reached out to me that I came back.

These days, it isn't as bad. People just generally ignore me and don't really downvote my videos that much. There has actually been somewhat of a softening towards me and I've gotten a few videos published, which surprised me. I also appreciate @ChaosEngine 's principaled stand and I wish more people thought that way. There have been some people who have consistently given me their votes (I won't name you because it will make you unpopular) even though I know they disagreed with the material. So I am not here to rail against the sift, because I appreciate the people who are being nicer to me, and I pray for all of you whether you like me or not.

The point I am making is that my experience completely affirms everything Zappa said. If you want further proof, just look at the amount of anti-religious vs. religious videos that have been sifted. There is no actual comparison. People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion) and that is why you don't see many videos that inform rather than denigrate religion on the sift.

@shinyblurry

Humour me and try and read this comment in your head in the voice of someone who wants to help you.

[me:]About your perceived arrogance. I'm not judging anybody on the Sift…. I'm telling you how you come off and how it's affecting your goal. Your spamming of what I consider nonsense into the middle of what I consider rational discussions and your indifference to the fact you're irritating people, in my mind, gives me licence to be blunt. You could accept it as honest criticism and go from there.

[you:]I think you, and many other people here, see me through a fun-house mirror made up of your preconceived notions about God and Christians in general. The reasons I am here are not so cut and dry, but I certainly feel that God wants me to talk to people here.

I cut out the words you don’t entirely agree with. The rest of my comment is all about our perception of you. That should be important to you if you think God wants you to talk to us and, one assumes, help us learn something. Right? Is that a consideration for you at all?

If I decided it was my civic duty to start showing up at a certain church and talk atheism to the parishioners, I would expect resistance, of course. I would pay very strong attention to how people were reacting to me and what topics or phrases or types of argument were setting people against me, and see if I could understand their perspective and adjust the way I spoke to help them understand me more. In that scenario, my goals for being at the church are different from the parishioners' goals, and since their goals for being there could be fulfilled (perhaps better) by ignoring me and by my being quiet, I’m the one who has to make the effort if I want to engage them.

That’s what I meant by "uninvited". It doesn’t mean anyone requires an invitation to join the Sift, or that anybody expects you to leave. It means nobody asked you to come and explain the "truth" of things to us. Our goal here is to kill time, follow political stories, discuss topics of interest to us and generally enjoy ourselves. Your goal here, however vague, is different from our goals, and often in conflict with them. I was enjoying thinking about Feynman’s points, then you come in with your arrogant opener, "It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it." Read it again to yourself. How would you react? Take @Quboid’s initial comments seriously too. Don’t nitpick phraseology like "pushing people away from your belief." Look past what you disagree with and address the real content. It's respectfully written and a valid question.

And I'm actually saying this selfishly because I do want to understand what you’re saying.

And FWIW, everyone sees everyone through a funhouse mirror, especially types we don’t have a lot of contact with and don’t understand. For us, yep, that’s you.

A snuff vid. Head-on collision where people died... similar to the exploding Nissan 4wd. Not my idea of entertainment, but the sift votes 6:1 against me.
>> ^Sagemind:

"This video has been removed as a violation of Youtube's policy on shocking and disgusting content"
What'd I miss?