Boldog uj evet, ya blood-drinkers!!

We are withdrawing our ambassador from the sift and encouraging all coffee drinkers to leave the website immediately!

I'm a coffee drinker so it looks like a coffee issue to me. I'm guessing if you drink and suffer hangovers it would be an issue of to much alcohol. Guess it just depends on your drug of choice.

edit
Now that I look at it more objectively I think it was intended to be a hangover issue and not one from a lack of coffee.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^gwiz665:
Nah, this isn't about coffee. It's about his reaction in a coffee shop - the coffee is incidental, it could have been a doughnut shop, and very little would have changed.

That was precisely my take. It's not about him craving coffee; it's about him feeling overwhelmed by a throng of strangers due to his torturous hangover.
C'est la vie.


I see your perspective now, about how the vid is really about his reaction to his hangover, but it makes me think that you're not a big coffee drinker. I think most people that are would realize that the blurred speech and slow progress of the people around him is a product of his lack of coffee, not his hangover.

I don't drink alcohol often, but this vid represents exactly how I feel until I have my first sip of Joe in the morning, regardless of what I did the night before.

It seems obvious to me when I watch it that the hangover is incidental, not the coffee. He even wakes up drinking vodka, so his hang over is already on route to being fixed-up at that point. Hair-of-the-dog you know...

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

His father was a drinker
And his mother cried in bed
Folding John Wayne's t-shirts
When the swingset hit his head
The neighbors they adored him
For his humor and his conversation
Look underneath the house there
Find the few living things, rotting fast, in their sleep
Oh, the dead

Twenty-seven people
Even more, they were boys
With their cars, summer jobs
Oh my God

Are you one of them?

He dressed up like a clown for them
With his face paint white and red
And on his best behavior
In a dark room on the bed
He kissed them all
He'd kill ten thousand people
With a sleight of his hand
Running far, running fast to the dead
He took off all their clothes for them
He put a cloth on their lips
Quiet hands, quiet kiss on the mouth

And in my best behavior
I am really just like him
Look beneath the floor boards
For the secrets I have hid


Sufjan Stevens on John Wayne Gacy, Jr.
“I think it’s kind of an exercise in humuliation. I won’t pretend to empathize with his behavior or his desire. But I can empathize with his nature. I feel our way of alienating and disassociating with serial killers is a way of disengaging with the reality of our nature, and that we are very selfish, possessive, violent people. I have high regard for the industry of humanity and our ability to give and generate love, but I also think we are selfish animals. I guess I felt a real conviction, although I don’t know where it came from, to humanize John Wayne Gacy, Jr. in a way that enabled us to encounter our own beasts within ourselves. [But] there was nothing good about him. He had no sense of grief about what he did, even to the very end. I’m not pretending to know where that comes from.”

Well the drummer in a rock band usually is known to be the hardcore drinker and badboy.

Did anyone else ad lib a south park style vomit noise?

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and to quote Cassandra Clare:

“Sarcasm is the last refuge of the imaginatively bankrupt.”

It's a tool passive aggressive people use to make the point about you, to delegitimize your point of view. It is just thinly veiled mockery. For a theist, ridicule from atheists, or more commonly, militant antitheists, is a daily event. It's just something that you get used to. It is rare to find rational discourse on this subject, although a few people on this board have stepped up to the plate.

It is about ego, and prejudice. Since he has decided to bash me in this thread, let's take HPQP as a good example of this. You only have to look at his videos to see that he has quite a lot of hatred stored up in his heart for Christianity. Thoughtful people aren't going to dedicate their time to trashing something they disagree with. This is clearly obsessive behavior fueled by anger and resentment, and most likely an underlying inferiority complex.

But, this is the way of the culture. Rudeness and intolerance is becoming the norm, especially in these United States. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705331806/Poll-Americans-are-becoming-more-rude.html

I appreciate you advocating for more decorum on here. On this subject particularly, if you watch some of the debates, like say dawkins vs lennox, you can see it is possible to discuss these issues in a respectful and civilized way, that is even intellectually satisfying. Even Hitchens said that the question of God was the greatest conversation you could have because it was a subject that led to every other important subject. It's sad that many people here don't seem to realize that and go out of their way to stifle discussion.




>> ^SDGundamX:

@hpqp
Thanks for explaining why you @GeeSussFreeK and I.
I'd like to explain my position more clearly. I'm not saying sarcasm is bad or should be banned or anything. I'm not saying "don't be mean to Shiny." I know you can't regulate people's behavior on the Net and I'm not about to try.
If I understand what you wrote correctly, you're saying using sarcasm is still "being a dick," it's just not nearly as much of being one as replying "you're a fag" to someone's argument. If that's what you're saying I agree with you on both counts (i.e. that using sarcasm is rather boorish behavior but it's not nearly so bad as resorting to direct insults).
Sarcasm can indeed be useful depending on what you intend to use it for. If you're looking to boost your own ego at another's expense and look intelligent while doing so, then really sarcasm is exactly what you're looking for. So too if you're hoping to get comment upvotes on the Sift--it seems like many of us Sifters appreciate a good burn.
But sarcasm also has a number of drawbacks and I personally find these to outweigh the benefits. The first drawback is adding unnecessary confrontation to a discussion. Sarcasm is an in-your-face ploy. It's personal. It might not be a punch in the face like "you're a fag" is, but it's at the least an back-handed bitch slap. Its goal is to belittle. If the target of the sarcasm wasn't aggressive before, they most likely will be when they reply because--let's face it--who wants to sit around and be insulted? Sarcasm exponentially increases the odds that a thread is going to devolve into a verbal brawl and that the original points being debated will get lost. Why introduce that risk into the argument? Why not just rationally argue your points?
Which brings me to the second drawback--sarcasm stifles debate. Sometimes this is intentional--rather than argue the points under discussion, the poster is looking to score ego points (or upvotes or whatever) because they really don't have anything substantial to contribute. I think, though, more often here on the Sift the debate gets lost unintentionally. People are so busy grandstanding and showing everyone how witty and sarcastic they can be that they forget to address or flat-out ignore valid points made by the opposition.
This is what I was trying to point out in the other thread. People dog-piled on Shiny not because of his main point (about the irony of toasting what he perceived to be an alcoholic/excessive drinker) but because he suggested praying for Hitchens (which, as far as Shiny goes is pretty mild in terms of the evangelical department). As I've said before, you actually were the only person to respond to the content of Shiny's comment rather than attack Shiny himself--your quotation implied that Hitchens would be pleased with the idea since he felt his drinking to be more of a benefit than a hindrance. It moved the conversation forward, if only for a moment. Things went rapidly downhill from there.
I know that sarcasm is all the rage these days--the fact that we now have a 'sarcasm' button for our comments on the Sift is telling. But reading the threads here on the Sift I can't help feeling it is detracting more than it is contributing. If the goal of posting is to feel good by belittling others, well I guess that's fine and dandy then. But if our goal of posting here is to approach the truth through dialogue, then I think the sarcasm is getting in the way of that.
Ultimately, of course, everyone is free to choose how they act on the Sift. My hope is that people who read this post who may be considering being sarcastic in a reply to another poster will think a bit more about what their goal is before posting. Looking to feel superior to another person? Flame away! But if you're looking to make a valid point and further the discussion, maybe sarcasm isn't way to go.

Thank you for this response. I find the discussion about civility, tone and sarcasm in debates to be an interesting one indeed, and intend on creating a sifttalk post about it in the near future. I will be sure to let you know when I do.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp

Thanks for explaining why you @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK and I.

I'd like to explain my position more clearly. I'm not saying sarcasm is bad or should be banned or anything. I'm not saying "don't be mean to Shiny." I know you can't regulate people's behavior on the Net and I'm not about to try.

If I understand what you wrote correctly, you're saying using sarcasm is still "being a dick," it's just not nearly as much of being one as replying "you're a fag" to someone's argument. If that's what you're saying I agree with you on both counts (i.e. that using sarcasm is rather boorish behavior but it's not nearly so bad as resorting to direct insults).

Sarcasm can indeed be useful depending on what you intend to use it for. If you're looking to boost your own ego at another's expense and look intelligent while doing so, then really sarcasm is exactly what you're looking for. So too if you're hoping to get comment upvotes on the Sift--it seems like many of us Sifters appreciate a good burn.

But sarcasm also has a number of drawbacks and I personally find these to outweigh the benefits. The first drawback is adding unnecessary confrontation to a discussion. Sarcasm is an in-your-face ploy. It's personal. It might not be a punch in the face like "you're a fag" is, but it's at the least an back-handed bitch slap. Its goal is to belittle. If the target of the sarcasm wasn't aggressive before, they most likely will be when they reply because--let's face it--who wants to sit around and be insulted? Sarcasm exponentially increases the odds that a thread is going to devolve into a verbal brawl and that the original points being debated will get lost. Why introduce that risk into the argument? Why not just rationally argue your points?

Which brings me to the second drawback--sarcasm stifles debate. Sometimes this is intentional--rather than argue the points under discussion, the poster is looking to score ego points (or upvotes or whatever) because they really don't have anything substantial to contribute. I think, though, more often here on the Sift the debate gets lost unintentionally. People are so busy grandstanding and showing everyone how witty and sarcastic they can be that they forget to address or flat-out ignore valid points made by the opposition.

This is what I was trying to point out in the other thread. People dog-piled on Shiny not because of his main point (about the irony of toasting what he perceived to be an alcoholic/excessive drinker) but because he suggested praying for Hitchens (which, as far as Shiny goes is pretty mild in terms of the evangelical department). As I've said before, you actually were the only person to respond to the content of Shiny's comment rather than attack Shiny himself--your quotation implied that Hitchens would be pleased with the idea since he felt his drinking to be more of a benefit than a hindrance. It moved the conversation forward, if only for a moment. Things went rapidly downhill from there.

I know that sarcasm is all the rage these days--the fact that we now have a 'sarcasm' button for our comments on the Sift is telling. But reading the threads here on the Sift I can't help feeling it is detracting more than it is contributing. If the goal of posting is to feel good by belittling others, well I guess that's fine and dandy then. But if our goal of posting here is to approach the truth through dialogue, then I think the sarcasm is getting in the way of that.

Ultimately, of course, everyone is free to choose how they act on the Sift. My hope is that people who read this post who may be considering being sarcastic in a reply to another poster will think a bit more about what their goal is before posting. Looking to feel superior to another person? Flame away! But if you're looking to make a valid point and further the discussion, maybe sarcasm isn't way to go.

@hpqp

Thanks for explaining why you @GeeSussFreeK and I.

I'd like to explain my position more clearly. I'm not saying sarcasm is bad or should be banned or anything. I'm not saying "don't be mean to Shiny." I know you can't regulate people's behavior on the Net and I'm not about to try.

If I understand what you wrote correctly, you're saying using sarcasm is still "being a dick," it's just not nearly as much of being one as replying "you're a fag" to someone's argument. If that's what you're saying I agree with you on both counts (i.e. that using sarcasm is rather boorish behavior but it's not nearly so bad as resorting to direct insults).

Sarcasm can indeed be useful depending on what you intend to use it for. If you're looking to boost your own ego at another's expense and look intelligent while doing so, then really sarcasm is exactly what you're looking for. So too if you're hoping to get comment upvotes on the Sift--it seems like many of us Sifters appreciate a good burn.

But sarcasm also has a number of drawbacks and I personally find these to outweigh the benefits. The first drawback is adding unnecessary confrontation to a discussion. Sarcasm is an in-your-face ploy. It's personal. It might not be a punch in the face like "you're a fag" is, but it's at the least an back-handed bitch slap. Its goal is to belittle. If the target of the sarcasm wasn't aggressive before, they most likely will be when they reply because--let's face it--who wants to sit around and be insulted? Sarcasm exponentially increases the odds that a thread is going to devolve into a verbal brawl and that the original points being debated will get lost. Why introduce that risk into the argument? Why not just rationally argue your points?

Which brings me to the second drawback--sarcasm stifles debate. Sometimes this is intentional--rather than argue the points under discussion, the poster is looking to score ego points (or upvotes or whatever) because they really don't have anything substantial to contribute. I think, though, more often here on the Sift the debate gets lost unintentionally. People are so busy grandstanding and showing everyone how witty and sarcastic they can be that they forget to address or flat-out ignore valid points made by the opposition.

This is what I was trying to point out in the other thread. People dog-piled on Shiny not because of his main point (about the irony of toasting what he perceived to be an alcoholic/excessive drinker) but because he suggested praying for Hitchens (which, as far as Shiny goes is pretty mild in terms of the evangelical department). As I've said before, you actually were the only person to respond to the content of Shiny's comment rather than attack Shiny himself--your quotation implied that Hitchens would be pleased with the idea since he felt his drinking to be more of a benefit than a hindrance. It moved the conversation forward, if only for a moment. Things went rapidly downhill from there.

I know that sarcasm is all the rage these days--the fact that we now have a 'sarcasm' button for our comments on the Sift is telling. But reading the threads here on the Sift I can't help feeling it is detracting more than it is contributing. If the goal of posting is to feel good by belittling others, well I guess that's fine and dandy then. But if our goal of posting here is to approach the truth through dialogue, then I think the sarcasm is getting in the way of that.

Ultimately, of course, everyone is free to choose how they act on the Sift. My hope is that people who read this post who may be considering being sarcastic in a reply to another poster will think a bit more about what their goal is before posting. Looking to feel superior to another person? Flame away! But if you're looking to make a valid point and further the discussion, maybe sarcasm isn't way to go.

@hpqp

Rational debate often isn't what happens here on the Sift, unfortunately, which is why I have indeed moved on to other sites--sites where the majority of discussion challenges people's assumptions without the need for cheap theatrics like sarcasm or insults or condescension.

I have no problem with upvoting or downvoting comments (you seem to have misunderstood my point there). I have a problem to the pandering for upvotes through insulting another poster without addressing the content of their post in any rational way (and thereby dismissing the original poster's argument--ad hominem in its purest form). That's a practice that is becoming a bit too frequent here in my opinion and the way this thread has developed is damning evidence for it (to your credit, you started out in this whole thing by actually addressing the point of Shiny's post rather than just harping on his evangelicalism--it's too bad things went downhill from there).

As I posted in @ChaosEngine's profile, whether Hitchens is or is not an alcoholic is a matter of opinion--and I happen to believe very much that he is. I posted my rationale for why I believe he is an alcoholic in that post, so check out Chaos's profile if you're interested in reading why.

As I also said in that post (on Chaos's profile), regardless of whether he is an alcoholic or not we can all agree (Hitchens would absolutely agree, I think) that he has been an excessive drinker. And this excessive drinking is likely one factor in the development of his cancer. Which brings me back to the original point which everyone seems so intent on missing--toasting an alcoholic excessive drinker is incredibly ironic, particularly when it is said alcoholism excessive drinking that's a contributing factor in his early death.

You disagree that he is an alcoholic? That's fine. Go ahead write your support for your point of view here. In fact, I can already guess what you'd provide as support: Hitchens "60 Minutes" interview in which he is asked point-blank whether he believes he is an alcoholic. And I would refute that interview and you could provide more support for your opinion and so on... But we'd just be arguing semantics at that point and missing out on Shiny's original point.

Now, we could have a fine and friendly disagreement about this whole issue without the name-calling, without the sarcasm, without egos getting in the way.

But this is the Sift and, as you have once again proven to me, this is not the place for that to happen.

By the way, while I did rather enjoy the condescending arrogance of your "FTFY" in your original reply to me, had you actually bothered to ask me why I wrote it we could have probably had an interesting discussion about a number of things, such as whether insulting someone's beliefs does or does not insult them personally and how some of Hitchens' comments are not actually directed against beliefs but specific people (Mother Teresa, for instance). But so convinced of your position were you that you chose to burn that bridge of dialogue before we could even cross it.

Also, I never answered your other post because I have a full-time job with unpaid overtime and a 6-month old at home, so I only get a limited amount of Net time. Given how this thread has gone, I now have zero inclination to continue talking with you. I said my peace in that thread. You replied. Let people who come later read the comments and decide for themselves what they want to believe or whether they even care. I simply don't anymore.

Thanks for reminding me about why I don't post comments on the Sift (at least, not anything that expresses much of an opinion).

Happy Sifting to you.

@SDGundamX said: Hitchens' confrontational debating strategy often involves not just making a point but also ridiculing his opponents' ideologies/beliefs while doing so, so I don't suppose I should expect better behavior from his most ardent fans.

FTFY

Also, we celebrate the deaths of soldiers with 21-gun salutes, and yet guns kill people too. What a senseless, heartless military tradition for paying homage!! I find it hard to believe that you, SDGundamX, would actually take shiny's pathetic evangelical opportunism seriously. So toasting to someone's health is all of a sudden some big insult? Wow, I wonder how your wedding went... (<--sarcasm)
If Hitchens were a chronic smoker it would be a bit weirder to "light one up" since that is not a cultural tradition, as toasting is. Even then, as a non-drinker I raise my glass of Yogi tea (I kid you not) to one of the most eloquent supporters of reason, and would light up a sparkler were he a chain-smoker. Here's to you, Hitchens.

Little known fact: New Zealanders call milk drinkers "cum guzzlers".

I myself was told I had showed up as having fatty liver, a friend of mine was diagnosed the same, and years before I was diagnosed someone I just randomly talking to in a game mentioned their brother had been diagnosed with liver issues.

Now what do they all have in common? Within months to a year the symptoms that the doctors told them were very serious went away with no medication or real diet changes on their part. All males in their 20s, only one of them was a drinker of note, one didn't drink at all and the other occasionally. Two were overweight, one obese. Two of them later went on to be diagnosed with sleep apnea (which affects lots of things) probably 3-4 years later.

That's not to say they weren't a sign of something potentially serious, but your body is constantly adapting to things so you could have just picked up a cold and got tested at the exact wrong time. I think I'd ask for another more planned for blood test, while you fast if it will give more accurate results.

Treating a fatty liver is important! First, if your doctor prescribes a medicine, most of the time it's harmful to your liver. Be a self advocate and discuss with him if the treatment is really important. Maybe taking steroids to stave off an annoying cough isn't as important as you'd like it to be.

Second, if you're a drinker, not only drink lots of water but also make sure you're taking in buttloads of potassium. If you're taking potassium supplements, please note they're probably potassium gluconate, and although the bottle says 550mg, it's really only 90mg of potassium (or 3% of your daily allowance). Don't be afraid to take more than one or two, and honestly coconut water and bananas have a high count of potassium so stock the fuck up.

Last, eat healthier. Broccoli, cabbage (or brussel sprouts) and garlic are great for fatty livers. Cut out sugar from your diet if possible. Instead of a soda, order unsweetened tea (black tea is just about as healthy as green tea!).