I guess the only reason daddy had a son was to make this video some day to emotionally blackmail Valve.

Evil genius.

I liked Bullshit, but a lot of the times they just has their science off. It's about entertainment...just like Mythbusters I don't expect them to get it 100% right.

The problem I had was with their 9/11 Show which was utterly stupid. They took the most idiotic people ever to make the case that there was a conspiracy. Ok cheerypicking but whatever. The crime they committed intellectually was getting a Firefighter that lost his friends in 9/11 to make the case that it wasn't a conspiracy. It was pure emotional blackmail, and it wasn't intellectually honest. They could've shut down soo much conspiracy nonsense but instead they just looked like morons.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Sotto_Voce:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
To those on this site that like to throw around 'fag' and 'gay' in a derogatory manner, maybe it's time to grow up a little. Even if you don't mean any harm, you still contribute to the kind of ignorant American culture that causes things like this to happen. Stop it.

Louis CK on the word Faggot.
Top comment on the video.
"Dude, I'm gay, I don't give a shit. It's a word. Get over it, faggots."


Better Louis CK bit on the word "faggot".
"You might wanna know that every gay man in America has probably had that word shouted at them while they’re being beaten up, sometimes many times, sometimes by a lot of people all at once. So, when you say it, it kind of brings that all back up. But, you know, by all means, use it. Get your laughs. But, you know, now you know what it means."

Really? Where was I when EVERY GAY MAN IN AMERICA was being beaten up while "FAGGOT" was being shouted at them? Sorry but this just isn't fucking true. Yes some gay people are beaten and while they are beaten some are called faggots. Don't try to use emotional blackmail to win your argument though, I didn't beat anyone. I correctly called someone who's being a "faggot," who may or may not be gay, a "faggot."
And why...because Louis CK is Funnier than you...and so am I and that makes us right.


Um... that is a quote from the clip I posted. A quote written by Louis CK. I recognize that not every gay man in America is beaten. I'm sure Louis recognizes that too. Sometimes hyperbole is used for effect, and most sensible people realize its not meant to be taken literally.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
To those on this site that like to throw around 'fag' and 'gay' in a derogatory manner, maybe it's time to grow up a little. Even if you don't mean any harm, you still contribute to the kind of ignorant American culture that causes things like this to happen. Stop it.

Louis CK on the word Faggot.
Top comment on the video.
"Dude, I'm gay, I don't give a shit. It's a word. Get over it, faggots."


Better Louis CK bit on the word "faggot".
"You might wanna know that every gay man in America has probably had that word shouted at them while they’re being beaten up, sometimes many times, sometimes by a lot of people all at once. So, when you say it, it kind of brings that all back up. But, you know, by all means, use it. Get your laughs. But, you know, now you know what it means."


Really? Where was I when EVERY GAY MAN IN AMERICA was being beaten up while "FAGGOT" was being shouted at them? Sorry but this just isn't fucking true. Yes some gay people are beaten and while they are beaten some are called faggots. Don't try to use emotional blackmail to win your argument though, I didn't beat anyone. I correctly called someone who's being a "faggot," who may or may not be gay, a "faggot."

And why...because Louis CK is Funnier than you...and so am I and that makes us right.

If a transgression did actually occur, there are procedures to deal with it, and humans often gain the ability to control their emotions upon exiting puberty.

Crying to get your way is emotional blackmail intended to manipulate other naked apes. That's why it evolved. It's the same as getting angry to intimidate other naked apes.

When subjected to emotional blackmail, we become the other's emotional hostage: "If you don't give me that, you will be responsible for my breakdown." [It makes people] afraid to cross them, feel obligated to give them their way and feel guilty if they don't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_blackmail

>> ^phelixian

I get what you're saying but I think the subjects he tackles deserve better and smarter treatment. I won't forget when he lays the emotional blackmail on old Charlton Heston and leaves a photo of a gun victim on his property. That's just hectoring of the lowest order.
He can make much better films and he has a platform to do so.

Is that not what he is doing? He looks at the motives of theists, deconstructs them, and uses them as a platform to criticize their behavior. He presents an exaggerated and stilted strawman. "Theists do X & Y bad things, so they are wrong..." complete with 'mean' pictures for theists. Such behavior mirrors the emotional blackmail of some theists. "You do X & Y bad things, so you are wrong..." My conclusion was more of a tongue in cheek tweak of that rather amusing hypocrisy. Where the arguments are passing each other in terminology is the metaphysical level on which the subject matter rests.

That's such a distortion of QualiaSoup's video that I have to wonder if we watched the same one.

Let me be clear. I am not an atheist or agnostic. My disagreements with the video and with QualiaSoup's overall philosophical position run very deep. In fact, my first comment lays out a number of them and avers to others. Ideologically, we are opposed. I have every reason to point out flaws in his video.

Yet it is not flawed in the way you claim. He does not say that theists are wrong because they do X & Y bad things. Rather, he claims that they are wrong, lays out his argument as to why theists are wrong, and then proceeds to criticize the bad behavior of a subset of religious believers.

I don't recall having erroneously mixed those issues - but if you interpret it that way then for the sake of clarity I'll address it. I was pointing out the hypocritical nature of the argument in this vid, and then made a general bemoaning complaint about why atheists keep feeling the need to slap religion in general, blanket terms. I make no commentary on why atheists reject religious truth claims. My comments are wholly confined to the topic of 'why do people feel the need to behave badly when dealing with other schools of thought?" The final bit in this vid could be directed as much to atheists as theists... "If you attack someone because they don't share your beliefs, you're invited to consider what that says about you and the values you claim to embrace."

How is it that you think QualiaSoup is behaving badly? If this were a political discussion, this video would be seen as markedly civil compared to most debate and commentary. He is not blindly asserting his opinion or venting his spleen. He lays out his arguments in a calm, logical manner. He doesn't obfuscate or make it difficult to figure out on what premises his arguments stand or fall. This is not a piece of demagoguery or propaganda. As far as I can tell, the video falls well within the bounds of civil discourse.



I accept that premise. I also point out that I never stated it was 'unmitigated good'. I said, "They do great good". That cannot be denied.

If you mean that "American and US religiously based charities do great good in the early 21st century," then maybe that's a supportable position. I have great reservations about it--I do not think that attempting to destroy indigenous religions in Africa and South America or fighting condom use in Africa are anything like goods--but the cultural and legal restrictions on acceptable church behavior act as a deterrent against the abuses seen past and present when churches have significantly greater power--as, for example, in the rampant child abuse in Catholic boarding schools in Ireland up through the 80's.

In your original comment, the logical work done by your analysis of his motives was to justify your dismissal of his position.

Is that not what he is doing? He looks at the motives of theists, deconstructs them, and uses them as a platform to criticize their behavior. He presents an exaggerated and stilted strawman. "Theists do X & Y bad things, so they are wrong..." complete with 'mean' pictures for theists. Such behavior mirrors the emotional blackmail of some theists. "You do X & Y bad things, so you are wrong..." My conclusion was more of a tongue in cheek tweak of that rather amusing hypocrisy. Where the arguments are passing each other in terminology is the metaphysical level on which the subject matter rests.

In contrast, most atheists distinguish between why they reject religious truth claims, and why they may or may not think religion to be harmful. This distinction must be kept in mind by all involved in the discussion to avoid misinterpretation of opposing views or accidentally presenting a fallacious argument... To mix the lines of argument together...is to become prey to fallacious and distorted thinking.

I don't recall having erroneously mixed those issues - but if you interpret it that way then for the sake of clarity I'll address it. I was pointing out the hypocritical nature of the argument in this vid, and then made a general bemoaning complaint about why atheists keep feeling the need to slap religion in general, blanket terms. I make no commentary on why atheists reject religious truth claims. My comments are wholly confined to the topic of 'why do people feel the need to behave badly when dealing with other schools of thought?" The final bit in this vid could be directed as much to atheists as theists... "If you attack someone because they don't share your beliefs, you're invited to consider what that says about you and the values you claim to embrace."

All I'm trying to point out is that Christian charity is not an unmitigated good.

I accept that premise. I also point out that I never stated it was 'unmitigated good'. I said, "They do great good". That cannot be denied.

I do not believe this is real.

This cannot be how interventions are handled, at least not by actual therapists. Using emotional blackmail to force the acceptance of some guy's treatment plan? Give. me. a. break.

It's a steaming pile of emotional blackmail maybe?

>> ^spoco2:


Because if you choose to not have them due to whatever health reasons you wish to abide by that's fine... it's when you're TOLD to not drink them, THAT'S a serious problem. Being TOLD to do something is not a way to do anything (at least not anything that isn't hurting others). And if the only thing you've got to go on is that they have 'addictive' substances... well... I notice that you left tea out of there, as do you know ANYONE who's addicted to tea? Does it extend to green tea? What else do you consider addictive? There are people who are addicted to all sorts of things, you can ban the use of everything just because some people use them to excess, that's removing free will. How about teaching restraint and the ability to control oneself instead?

And a significant portion is used for trying to push the word on others, build large churches to your lord (the one near me has large grounds and is kept immaculately(tee hee) clean... so at least you're tidy) etc. Saying that some goes towards good doesn't get it off the hook. Being told that if you want to be considered a good follower you need to give up 1/10 of your income... man, that's emotional blackmail right there.


People do choose not to drink tea and coffee and alcohol. Mormons do teach restraint and learning to control oneself. But why take the unnecessary risk of surrendering free will? Addictive substances are just not worth it. (Pornography is also considered addictive and highly frowned upon.) The church advises against such substances, but they aren't about to kick anybody out for drinking tea.

Much of the money given to tithing also supports members of the congregation in which a Mormon resides. This money is given under the condition that the beneficiaries do all they can to become economically independent. People make a great sacrifice for what they believe to be a greater cause, and they know exactly why they do it. They give money to those who need it, and Mormons do a lot of good. As to the other places that the moeny goes: They believe in missionary work. They want everyone in the world to have access to temples. Tithing is also seen as preparation for a time when Jesus Christ comes again, when there will be no personal property. Tithing is a self-fulfilling, generous, and wonderful thing that Mormons choose to do with their money. Of all things to have a problem with, I am amazed that you choose tithing. Emotional blackmail my foot. Taxes are forced donations to often unknown and unreasonable causes. Tithing is a voluntary donation that goes exactly where Mormons want it to go.

>> ^deedub81:
^Who tries to force? Our motive for missionary work is to bring our message to all who are willing to hear. If you're not willing to listen, we leave.

Just coming to my door and trying everything possible before finally giving up and leaving is just plain annoying. Although doing it to tribes and other 'non advanced' cultures is pretty terrible. It's done all over by most Christian religions and has wiped out so many native belief systems which are just as logical and based on just as much fact as any that Christians follow.

The forcing part comes with what GundamnX says above, whereby those in the church are seriously encouraged to get all their friends and family into it too so they can 'all be together in the afterlife'. Now this isn't just with the Mormons, I had a friend who was... erm... babtist I think, anyway, he tried for years to convert me... eventually I stopped seeing him due to his anti gay views.


Coffee and Wine both contain addictive substances. We've all heard about the benefits that go along with the risks, but there's nothing those drinks do for my body that is essential or that I can't get somewhere else. I know plenty of people who never drank a lick of coffee or wine and were very healthy all their lives. We just choose to steer clear of habit forming substances. I can't understand why what we choose to drink or not to drink would be listed as an "issue" that you have with the Mormon religion.

Because if you choose to not have them due to whatever health reasons you wish to abide by that's fine... it's when you're TOLD to not drink them, THAT'S a serious problem. Being TOLD to do something is not a way to do anything (at least not anything that isn't hurting others). And if the only thing you've got to go on is that they have 'addictive' substances... well... I notice that you left tea out of there, as do you know ANYONE who's addicted to tea? Does it extend to green tea? What else do you consider addictive? There are people who are addicted to all sorts of things, you can ban the use of everything just because some people use them to excess, that's removing free will. How about teaching restraint and the ability to control oneself instead?

In regards to giving up our money: A significant dollar amount gathered from tithes and offerings go toward humanitarian efforts around the world.

And a significant portion is used for trying to push the word on others, build large churches to your lord (the one near me has large grounds and is kept immaculately(tee hee) clean... so at least you're tidy) etc. Saying that some goes towards good doesn't get it off the hook. Being told that if you want to be considered a good follower you need to give up 1/10 of your income... man, that's emotional blackmail right there.

Strangely I found the total reverse with my dealings with hot women back in Uni, they knew they were hot and thus would leverage that as an advantage, everything from trying to get free drinks at the bar to throwing their name on a research paper a group of us would spend weeks on. Talking to them was simply grating as they would also assume that because they are good looking that you were instantly interested in one thing one from the outset, basically getting into their knickers. I would see the change happening almost instantly if you tried to engage them in a meaningful conversation, the sudden stand off, the glaze in the eyes of "Ohh you want me?". If you failed to respond in the appropriate way i.e. submission to their desires, they would get all needy and annoying, eventually thinking I was weird, anti-social or basically an asshole. Of course this was not the case all the time, but close to 60% to 70% of the interactions I used to have. Oh my god the worst was girls trying to score weed off me.

Maybe I was a prude or it had something to do with growing up in an Islamic society, but basically I resented being treated in that way, I was expected to capitulated to their whims and desires, be at their beckoned call (usage of possible close contact, time alone, and or emotional blackmailing were always used). I saw this being used to great affect by my ex, who would playfully flirt with everyone as a way of being 'friendly', I told her early on that men don't read that as being friendly like they would back in our high school in Kuwait, it's different, being overly friendly with testosterone fueled men in college leads to one place in their minds. She told me I was being silly and they were all her friends, right up to the point that they started hitting her full force, asking her out on dates and basically assassinating my character behind my back as a way of winning her over.

Alot of what you mention seems to stem from being in such a environment in your life, but have you thought that your good looks were also intimidating to such a degree people would find it hard to communicate with you? I believe essentially both sexes are to blame, but I doubt you will find many good looking guys or girls really lamenting on the plight that their good looks have created. The prejudice goes both ways.

Needless to say I think being an adolescent is always a hard phase to go through in general, for everyone.