>> ^renatojj:

Flashforward!


LOL. I forgot about that show/series.

Is it just me who thinks that at the end when sheldon faints, Hawkins seems to smile?

>> ^curiousity:
Thank you for providing this example of your irrationality and intellectual dishonesty by, among other things, completely ignoring the counterpoints to the few studies I was able to get to.

I didn't ignore your counterpoints, I just took them in the balance of this comment of yours:

"Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for"

Since you had already dismissed me as unworthy of your time, I saw little reason to devote much of my time to responding to your points. And even if everything you said were true, which I do not concede, it still wouldn't be enough to overturn the general conclusion of homosexuality being harmful to the individual, community and society. The evidence from the Netherlands is particularly powerful as it shows that even in societies that are open to homosexuality, the risk factors are the same or even worse. I'll address your points:

gay party scene: please be specific..I can think of one study.

too old: if it has changed, please show the data

>> ^curiousity:
"Link below is from 2003. It clearly shows the need for STD and sex education in this country. If I was less educated and wasn't worried about getting a woman pregnant, I wouldn't worry about condoms either. It's not a hard concept, but one that I imagine you will easily dismiss because it undermines your argument."

Are homosexuals less educated on STDs and sex education? How else do you account for them being 63 percent of all new cases? Why are the statistics the same everywhere you look. Sex education can only do so much..many people know when they are engaging in risky behavior and do it anyway.

>> ^curiousity:
"A study from two cities in a southern state from 1994. I've included a quote for this study that, apparently, you overlooked: "Although a low response rate severely limits the interpretation of these data, they are justified by the absence of similar published data for both gays and lesbians living outside major metropolitan areas." (This data isn't very useful, but we don't have any other data so we should use it. Again, not a hard concept, but it undermines you conclusions... Ignore! Ignore!)"

Here is more data:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15838193

>> ^curiousity:
"I like how you didn't read all of those 134 words in the second link - "helps users escape internalized homophobia or other social stigmas." I also find it shocking that gay men in long-term, stable relationships are not constantly going to an STD testing clinic - Does this point make sense? You haven't been completely robbed of all logic, have you? If you want to be a little more honest with yourself and actually look at the studies, it is easy to see the gaps that undermines your jumping to validate your viewpoint."

I'm sure that some drug use may be based on their feelings of being persecuted, but if it's all based on discrimination then why are the usage rates the same in countries where homosexuality is practically institutionalized? I also wonder where personal responsibility ever comes into play? Do you think people can blame all of their behavior on environmental factors and not take any responsibility for their own choices? If I lose all of my money because of some dishonest bank and become homeless, does that mean I now have a right to steal? Or when I steal, am I not a criminal?

>> ^curiousity:
There is a classic false argument of saying that being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance. If you want to classify my refusal to allow your intolerant claims to stand unabated in that manner, so be it. I do apologize that I didn't make myself more clear about not thinking you were a homophobe, but the simple fact is that I look at people's actions and speech instead of why they say they are doing something. Your actions of condemnation are the same end result and that is what I meant to draw the parallel too, but I had to leave for work and unfortunately didn't make that point clearly.

How are my claims intolerant? I am not intolerant of anyone, I am intolerant of sin. There is a difference between judging someone as a person and judging their behavior. I am incapable of judging anyone, because I would only be a hypocrite, being equally guilty as they are, but I can tell if what they're doing is right or wrong. And yes, it is intolerant (by definition) to be intolerant of those who don't tolerate your position. You either welcome everyone to the table, including those who disagree with you, or you do exactly what you accuse them of doing to you.

>> ^curiousity:
It irks me that you dismiss what I say as trying to undermine only part of your evidence. (To be more honest, I think that irksome feeling is more tied into your utter refusal to address those points of contention… which was expected, but still frustrating.) I didn't have enough time to go through all of your provided evidence. I had to leave for work soon and while writing is lovely, it is a laborious action for me - it takes a while for me to write anything surpassing cursory. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that I actually was reading and thinking about the studies. So while you were able to throw together quite a few apparently supporting studies for your viewpoint in an hour, I was much slower because I read those studies beyond the headline and skimming the abstract. Congratulations, you succeeded in becoming skillful on the quantity side... perhaps now it is time to focus on the quality side.

As I indicated, your post was dismissive..therefore I didn't spend much time on it. I appreciate the time you did spend but there was no indication you weren't interested in further dialogue.

>> ^curiousity:
Please in the future, respond after reading/viewing any evidence provided. This is similar to all the comments I see here asking you to actually watch the video before announcing that (shock!) what you thought was right was still right because you saw something that you disagree with in the first couple of minutes. If you don’t have the evidence or that evidence is something is the hazy distance of memory, just leave a comment that you need to refresh your memory on those resources. I completely understand this situation as I voraciously and nomadically spelunk into various intellectual subjects. On a semi-regular basis and depending on the subject, I will have to re-find that research that I faintly remember. I know that my writing style can come off as hyper-aggressive and be a little off-putting (especially when coupled how people have responded to you here on videosift.) I can only speak for myself, but if your response to my initial comment said simple that you had read it in some research long ago, that was hazy, and you needed to find those sources – this conversation could have went a very different route.

I'm open to a change in conversation. I am not super interested in arguing about statistics until kingdom come. I realize that they are not going to convince you of anything. I was just trying to support my statement. Since you feel that you understand some psychological motive about me that underlies my behavior, what do you think that is exactly? I can tell you that I do sincerely feel love for all people, even those who openly hate me. Mind you, sometimes I fail to show it, or even show the opposite..but that is something the Lord is helping me with. Some people are harder to love than others, but I see them all as being in the image of God and worthy of my love and respect. I can honestly say that have no predisposition against homosexuals, but you feel I do; so tell me why.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^shinyblurry:

...snip...

Thank you for providing this example of your irrationality and intellectual dishonesty by, among other things, completely ignoring the counterpoints to the few studies I was able to get to.

There is a classic false argument of saying that being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance. If you want to classify my refusal to allow your intolerant claims to stand unabated in that manner, so be it. I do apologize that I didn't make myself more clear about not thinking you were a homophobe, but the simple fact is that I look at people's actions and speech instead of why they say they are doing something. Your actions of condemnation are the same end result and that is what I meant to draw the parallel too, but I had to leave for work and unfortunately didn't make that point clearly.

It irks me that you dismiss what I say as trying to undermine only part of your evidence. (To be more honest, I think that irksome feeling is more tied into your utter refusal to address those points of contention… which was expected, but still frustrating.) I didn't have enough time to go through all of your provided evidence. I had to leave for work soon and while writing is lovely, it is a laborious action for me - it takes a while for me to write anything surpassing cursory. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that I actually was reading and thinking about the studies. So while you were able to throw together quite a few apparently supporting studies for your viewpoint in an hour, I was much slower because I read those studies beyond the headline and skimming the abstract. Congratulations, you succeeded in becoming skillful on the quantity side... perhaps now it is time to focus on the quality side.

Please in the future, respond after reading/viewing any evidence provided. This is similar to all the comments I see here asking you to actually watch the video before announcing that (shock!) what you thought was right was still right because you saw something that you disagree with in the first couple of minutes. If you don’t have the evidence or that evidence is something is the hazy distance of memory, just leave a comment that you need to refresh your memory on those resources. I completely understand this situation as I voraciously and nomadically spelunk into various intellectual subjects. On a semi-regular basis and depending on the subject, I will have to re-find that research that I faintly remember. I know that my writing style can come off as hyper-aggressive and be a little off-putting (especially when coupled how people have responded to you here on videosift.) I can only speak for myself, but if your response to my initial comment said simple that you had read it in some research long ago, that was hazy, and you needed to find those sources – this conversation could have went a very different route.

This is so funny. The look of shock on his face is hilarious, but the physical jolt of his body at :39 had me lmfao. He just goes all stiff like one of those fainting goats. It was as if he was suddenly sucked back into reality from whatever joyful land of eternal mouse batteries he was frolicing in.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

I like how when Portal 2 came out he eviscerated it with faint praise, but now that the year's over it turns out to be his favorite thing that came out all year.

And it pains me to say this, but he was right on both counts.

2011 fucking blew. GoW 3 was a letdown, so was Uncharted 3, so was AC: Revelations (which didn't reveal jack shit), all of which I'd been very much looking forward to.

I hear that other people really love Skyrim, but given that I almost instantly lost interest in both Oblivion and Fallout 3 when I played them, I'm just gonna save my money and not bother.

And I'm with Yahtzee about MW3/BF3, sorta. I don't really think they deserve to be singled out as garbage, they're just totally and completely not my cup of tea.

Here's hoping 2012 will be a bit less of a letdown!

I was hoping she would stop for a moment about half-way through to notice that faint sound (fap fap fap) and notice her boyfriend/husband/poolboy wacking a mole while watching all this, and she gives him a look. He looks back all innocent as if saying, you have your morning calisthenics and I have mine.

I think your graphic artist is very talented and has a great carrier ahead.

I hope you can work it out--that is sooo cute

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Thanks, I'll let my graphic artist know :

I was hoping to use it, unaltered, as my Christmas avatar... unfortunately it is too faint and too pink when used this way. I'm now considering what I need to do to it to make it suitable. I suspect using the antlers and Christmas hat on my current avatar is going to be the easiest approach, requiring only three or four layers. It's possible that some colour massaging and clever downsampling might make it "just work" but I am not holding my breath.
In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Great pic!

Thanks, I'll let my graphic artist know

I was hoping to use it, unaltered, as my Christmas avatar... unfortunately it is too faint and too pink when used this way. I'm now considering what I need to do to it to make it suitable. I suspect using the antlers and Christmas hat on my current avatar is going to be the easiest approach, requiring only three or four layers. It's possible that some colour massaging and clever downsampling might make it "just work" but I am not holding my breath.
In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Great pic!

That makes sense. I have a friend who is unwilling (at least right now) to do the Tough Mudder, but he did a Warrior Dash this summer and said it was "easy."

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to do a TM at some point... =)

>> ^garmachi:

>> ^carneval:
I've been thinking about doing one in VT next year, if other athletic pursuits don't interfere.
It seems like a pretty cool thing; though coming from the viewpoint of a traditional runner it's hard not to see it as a bit gimmicky (ike I said, I'd still like to do it)...
Not as gimmicky as this, though: http://runforyourlives.com/

On the surface, it DOES seem a bit gimmicky to me as well. The zombie one looks fun, and there seems to be a rash of these things popping up all over the place just this year. I wonder if it's really a new trend, or "blue car syndrome..." Either way, everyone I've talked to who's done it says that it's incredibly challenging and not for the faint of heart.
We ran a Warrior Dash (3 mile version of the Tough Mudder) earlier this year and were a bit disappointed - it was fun, don't get me wrong, but it felt like a frat party which happened to have a mud pit and some joggers. I forget who said it, but the summed up the difference as "you can do the Warrior Dash with a hangover, but to do the Tough Mudder you have to sign a Death Waiver first."

>> ^carneval:

I've been thinking about doing one in VT next year, if other athletic pursuits don't interfere.
It seems like a pretty cool thing; though coming from the viewpoint of a traditional runner it's hard not to see it as a bit gimmicky (ike I said, I'd still like to do it)...
Not as gimmicky as this, though: http://runforyourlives.com/


On the surface, it DOES seem a bit gimmicky to me as well. The zombie one looks fun, and there seems to be a rash of these things popping up all over the place just this year. I wonder if it's really a new trend, or "blue car syndrome..." Either way, everyone I've talked to who's done it says that it's incredibly challenging and not for the faint of heart.

We ran a Warrior Dash (3 mile version of the Tough Mudder) earlier this year and were a bit disappointed - it was fun, don't get me wrong, but it felt like a frat party which happened to have a mud pit and some joggers. I forget who said it, but the summed up the difference as "you can do the Warrior Dash with a hangover, but to do the Tough Mudder you have to sign a Death Waiver first."

Upvote for teaching me about that expression, but there is always the possibility that she actually does not want her husband to be president.

>> ^marinara:

to correct keith's grammar, "damning with faint praise" refers to an active act of damning someone with faint praise, not an accidental damning.

to correct keith's grammar, "damning with faint praise" refers to an active act of damning someone with faint praise, not an accidental damning.