I'm just glad I was proven wrong and Obama has ended all the wars in the Middle East and chosen to also not rattle the saber of war at Syria, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, et. al.

*promote

It's hilarious to me that they're so desperate to hang on to their little "promised land" that they are becoming the next Reich.
This is assuming everything in the video is true, but I feel confident it is because for the last 10+ years I've heard nothing but stories like this from Israel. Plus Palestine, et al.

@bmacs27, you are literally invoking Godwin. Yes, if you are going to accuse someone as being comparable to a dictator widely regarded as one of the greatest monsters history, you should have a decent argument to back you up.

@cosmovitelli again, I am not defending the actions of anyone, and I don't think it just comes down to numbers either. You're talking about people who lead genocidal purges against people purely because of their ethnic background or sexuality, or someone who had their political opponents imprisoned and executed en masse.

Whatever you can say about Bush et al, they simply haven't committed those kinds of attrocites.

Reagan, Bush et al were certainly not nice guys, but try to keep a sense of perspective. They are not in anyway comparable to Hitler, Stalin or Genghis Khan.

If you're going to make statements like that, you need to back up your argument with some facts.

CBD possesses sedative properties (Carlini and Cunha, 1981), and a clinical
trial showed that it reduces the anxiety and other unpleasant psychological
side effects provoked by pure THC (Zuardi et al. 1982). CBD modulates the
pharmacokinetics of THC by three mechanisms: (1) it has a slight affinity for
cannabinoid receptors (Ki at CB1 = 4350 nM, compared to THC = 41 nM,
Showalter et al. 1996), and it signals receptors as an antagonist or reverse agonist
(Petitet et al. 1998), (2) CBD may modulate signal transduction by perturbing
the fluidity of neuronal membranes, or by remodeling G-proteins that
carry intracellular signals downstream from cannabinoid receptors, and (3)CBD
is a potent inhibitor of cytochrome P450 3A11 metabolism, thus it blocks the
hydroxylation of THC to its 11-hydroxy metabolite (Bornheim et al. 1995).
The 11-hydroxy metabolite is four times more psychoactive than unmetabolized
THC (Browne and Weissman 1981), and four times more immunosuppressive
(Klein et al. 1987).
CBD provides antipsychotic benefits (Zuardi et al. 1995). It increases dopamine
activity, serves as a serotonin uptake inhibitor, and enhances norepinephrine
activity (Banerjee et al. 1975; Poddar and Dewey 1980). CBD protects
neurons from glutamate toxicity and serves as an antioxidant, more potently
than ascorbate and α-tocopherol (Hampson et al. 1998). Auspiciously, CBD
does not decrease acetylcholine (ACh) activity in the brain (Domino 1976;
Cheney et al. 1981). THC, in contrast, reduces hippocampal ACh release in
rats (Carta et al. 1998), and this correlates with loss of short-term memory consolidation.
In the hippocampus THC also inhibits N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)
receptor activity (Misner and Sullivan 1999; Shen and Thayer 1999), and
NMDA synaptic transmission is crucial for memory consolidation (Shimizu et
al. 2000). CBD, unlike THC, does not dampen the firing of hippocampal cells
(Heyser et al. 1993) and does not disrupt learning (Brodkin and Moerschbaecher
1997).
Consroe (1998) presented an excellent review of CBD in neurological disorders.
In some studies, it ameliorates symptoms of Huntington’s disease, such
as dystonia and dyskinesia. CBD mitigates other dystonic conditions, such as
torticollis, in rat studies and uncontrolled human studies. CBD functions as an
anticonvulsant in rats, on a par with phenytoin (Dilantin, a standard antiepileptic
drug).
CBD demonstrated a synergistic benefit in the reduction of intestinal motility
in mice produced by THC (Anderson, Jackson, and Chesher 1974). This
may be an important component of observed benefits of cannabis in inflammatory
bowel diseases.

--"Cannabis and Cannabis Extracts:
Greater Than the Sum of Their Parts?
John M. McPartland
Ethan B. Russo"

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, or one of the less-grounded members of this community (you all know who you are!), and I'm not trying to make this out to be the good/bad/evil scenario, i.e. Emperor Palpatine et al. I use "government" as a collective, general term, however I felt it was apt in this context given that people strictly within the government, and maybe lobbyists to an extent, are responsible for these various decisions that have led us to this point.
No, they don't seek power for it's own sake, but the handful of objectives I listed in my last post are a sampling of what might drive an organization to pursue power fervently.

There does seem to exist a greater, definitively single-minded pursuit of lessening the civil rights of US citizens since the turn of the millennium, in an attempt to have more power over them, and while "government" at large generally fumbles over itself when it attempts to get all the parts moving together as one, I believe you can see the broader cooperation happening here. From inclusion of said US Tech companies roles, the nation-wide abuse by the police force, aggression of US border patrol agents, random TSA checkpoints on some state highways, and the statements made by the president and his staff, which only seem to serve to blow off civil concerns with one breath while granting increased power to these same entities with the next.

At this point in a country's history, it seems to me that the only thing that can change the course of an entire nation is decisive action by it's citizens on a scale that would simultaneously qualify as an act that justifies all their overreaches of power. And I don't mean in any way acts of violence, but if there were a 5-million-man-march on the capitol tomorrow to show a mass appeal for reason and demand accountability, I believe it would be used as an example of why the government is pursuing such surveillance to begin with.

Sorry this is long winded, but lastly, I wouldn't feel too bad about Obama's allegedly targeting only foreign individuals. To me that felt like damage control to appease the US populace rather than an affront to foreign nationals. They said the Exact. Same. Thing. about the Patriot Act, and that was being used to arrest US citizens for minor infractions by local law enforcement not 6-months after it was passed. Disgusting.

"I swore an oath to defend prohibition and the repeal of prohibition, so help me God".

Its just secular religion; a crisis of modernity, the same as Nazism, Communism, industrialism et al.

You are an a-godzilla-ist and that is entirely a practical concession to the fact that you can't really afford giant monster insurance considering recent statistics for giant lizard attacks and indeed going through life avoiding Tokyo at all costs is just kinda a bummer - imagine all the fresh sushi you could miss out on.

You can't actually prove that there never was a Godzilla or that there never will be a Godzilla and you can only assume (not demonstrate) that there is not a Godzilla planet orbiting one of the stars a few galaxies down the way.

All you can really say is that Tokyo is still standing and that all the various accounts of Godzilla's antics across the myriad of B-movies and hollywood blockbusters that feature him as a character seem to have no basis in reality for various reasons. You move on with your day, smile a bit and never really bother to duck for cover.

And that's all we're saying about God. To my knowledge, that is the bleeding edge of audacious claims being made by anyone who is even vaguely respected - simply that we can't take religious claims seriously any more, so we are going to move on with our lives, only dealing with religion directly when it decides to be a bit too influential for our tastes.

But fine, based on the secondary predicate principle and a lengthy philosophy 101 essay with no shortage of verbal meandering through Descartes, et al., atheists kinda sorta make a claim of some sort. What's your point.

And if you think that the atheist experience simply trawls the bottom of Christian intellectualism then who would you have them debate, Ray comfort? Matt Slick? Perhaps you?

More than anything, the most disgusting trait of Christianity is that it equates child rapists and children as equally sinful in the eyes of God. There are certainly various arguments saying that different consequences will be felt here on earth, or perhaps that there is an arbitrary age of innocence, etc... But almost universally, Christians agree that the following scenario is at least possible:

Rapist rapes child, we'll start with that.

The child struggles through the resultant torturous anguish across a lifetime, starts a support group, mans a hotline, works in the community to support fellow victims, increases awareness and so on while loving his/her family and friends, making mistakes periodically and occasionally letting loose at a concert or something. The child (now an adult) is unfortunately just a minimally observant Jew and never really gave Jesus any consideration, so when he/she gets hit by a drunk driver at the unfortunate age of 34, he/she is tormented in hell for the rest of eternity.

The rapist, meanwhile, goes on with his (statistically probable) life, perhaps he rapes some more children (also statistically probable) and maybe he then stops at some point, realizing it is wrong and maybe even feels guilty about it. Ridden by guilt, the preaching of a wayward street preacher catch his ears one day. He ventures into church for the first time. He is moved. He proclaims his belief in Jesus and the resurrection. He feels his sins are forgiven and he can feel years of guilt being washed away. Maybe he even admits his history as a rapist to a sympathetic inner circle of confidants, spiritual advisors and friends. He dies of a heart attack, and spends eternity in heaven.

That is disgusting and a god that sets such a system up is disgusting.

Many compassionate people are blinded into thinking this is just and good in an effort to tenaciously preserve their own sense of eternal safety and cosmic worth at all costs. That is less disgusting just because it is an understandable impulse, but it is disgusting nonetheless.

Well first off--now I see an answer to my question,

"Why the hell are they wasting top-of-the-page space?"

I don't see three promoted videos in a line; I see two videos and a third one below and to the left, leaving a big hole below and to the right.

I agree with @bareboards2, @eric3579, @ctrlaltbleach, @Sagemind, et al. And @spoco2's dissection is spot on.

I also have a problem with the crosshatching. I don't know the optical reasons, but the gray on gray crosshatch is like lasers in my eyeballs. Maybe color is part of it? I know the conspiracy tag is completely unreadable to me now.

I love this place and remember my fevered consternation when--in the past--the site was down for me. But I've had to go elsewhere recently just because of eyestrain.

Beautiful. I want to play here all day. Thanks, Dag, et al.

In this clip I don't hear Keller say there is or isn't a God. I don't hear him say that evolution is bunk or not. I hear him saying that Dawkins argument is spurious for several reasons.

As I understand it, the scientific method requires that something must be falsifiable; evolution is not. I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen, just that you can't apply the scientific method to it. Also, the scientific method is always in the hands of humans. That is the fly in the ointment. Humans are hugely fallible. The method may be perfect, but the handlers aren't.

I think it would be beneficial to watch the entire talk so that Keller isn't being made the problem for pointing out the problem. There is a problem and it isn't Keller or me. It isn't you either. It's the fallibility of humans not being taken into account in this equation.

>> ^PalmliX:

Who cares if he quotes two "respectable secular sources"? Just because someone is "respected" and "secular" doesn't mean that what they have to say on any given subject will be truthful or even meaningful.
Even if the most respected scientist in the world came out and said that God was absolutely real it still wouldn't matter. They wouldn't be able to provide any evidence for their claim and at the end of the day the opinion of one, or even several scientists isn't all that important. It's the facts that matter, things that we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.
As far as I can tell, Tim Keller's basic point is that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in a god because if evolution is correct and our beliefs are formed purely for survival reasons and don't necessarily tell us what is true, than how can judge the objective truth of our various beliefs?
Well I know of one particularly effective way of judging our beliefs. It's called the scientific method and it works because it only deals with facts, only with things that can be proven true. Anything else is useless.
I'm glad that you found Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation, but so what? So what if his audience is UC Berkly and they laughed at his jokes? This doesn't change the facts of our universe. Now maybe as you said, Keller's point has been lost in translation and I'm just not 'getting it', so please help me to understand.
>> ^silvercord:
Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.
I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.
>> ^PalmliX:
Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

Who cares if he quotes two "respectable secular sources"? Just because someone is "respected" and "secular" doesn't mean that what they have to say on any given subject will be truthful or even meaningful.

Even if the most respected scientist in the world came out and said that God was absolutely real it still wouldn't matter. They wouldn't be able to provide any evidence for their claim and at the end of the day the opinion of one, or even several scientists isn't all that important. It's the facts that matter, things that we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.

As far as I can tell, Tim Keller's basic point is that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in a god because if evolution is correct and our beliefs are formed purely for survival reasons and don't necessarily tell us what is true, than how can judge the objective truth of our various beliefs?

Well I know of one particularly effective way of judging our beliefs. It's called the scientific method and it works because it only deals with facts, only with things that can be proven true. Anything else is useless.

I'm glad that you found Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation, but so what? So what if his audience is UC Berkly and they laughed at his jokes? This doesn't change the facts of our universe. Now maybe as you said, Keller's point has been lost in translation and I'm just not 'getting it', so please help me to understand.
>> ^silvercord:

Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.
I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.
>> ^PalmliX:
Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.

I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.

>> ^PalmliX:

Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

Whenever I see something like this I always think 'how do the people running these scams get away with it?'

Then I read the comments here and realise people are far too uninformed to understand the problems. I'm not going to say stupid, just uninformed. Physics, science generally and maths are seen as geeky subjects studied by nerds which can be safely ignored by the cool kids because they'll never need them in real life. This leads to the completely uninformed comments above. Anyone who thinks this could work is wrong. If you think it will extend the range you are wrong.

There is a hell of a lot of money to be made from fuel efficiency in cars. Which do you think is more likely: Ford, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Honda, Toyota, Volvo, GM, Dodge, et al with all the hundreds of millions of pounds or dollars or Yen or whatever they spend on development missed something a farmer in China was able to build in his garage - or the farmer in China is wrong? Add to the car makers all the companies who make planes and trains and boats and it shows a pretty obvious fact.

Yep, the Chinese farmer is wrong. Simple.

But the worst thing about this video is that it exists. I'm sure farmers all over the world come up with stupid ideas all the time (as do people from other walks of life too!), but that doesn't mean they need to make a video about it.

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...