please do not inject a presumed intent.

i was not being a "dick" to you.
i was simply pointing out faulty logic.
which how i see it is being a friend.

i would do the same if your fly was open.

reread my comment.
now take out any intention of mine to be a douche towards you.

notice anything?

my point is simply this:
disagree with the conclusions..thats fine.

but if you are going to point to make an argument criticizing a documentary make sure the logic you use does not work against you.

you think the movie was using heavy fear-mongering and deceitful tactics.
i do not.
in fact i think the director avoided some material for exactly the reason you have stated.

so?
we disagree.
its going to happen from time to time.
sorry you felt i had an alterior motive in regards to your feelings.

just know i do not operate that way.
the only time you will see me being a dick is when someone has thrown the first punch.

maybe i put too much faith in our understanding of each other.
i thought we were similarly minded and it never occured to me that you may take what i posted personally.

my lack of insight has caused this and i apologize.

Hey @enoch,

> dude,
> i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

Sure, not a problem. It's a complex issue, and requires the time to consider and understand the details.

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither.
> IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

Uh-oh, I hope this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.. That is, "since we cannot have a free market lets go for full-blown socialism because it is supposedly better than fascism." It's a false choice and not one I think any true humanitarian would be willing to entertain.

> "should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market? police?
> firefighters? roads?"

In short, yes. Aversion to socialism is based on reality, in contrast to what you're saying. Socialism is failure. Central planning inevitably fails. Central planners do not have the required knowledge to plan an economy. You need economic calculation and economic calculation is impossible to achieve in a socialist "economy."

> "to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your
> arguments you disagree. ok..we both have that right."

Are you trying to conflate "socialized healthcare" with health? Let's not confuse the facts with personal attacks. You seem to be saying, "if you are against socialism you are against health." That makes no sense. None.
I might as well say, "If you are against free markets you are against health."

> "my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized
> society. in my opinion health care is one of them."

In no way did I ever say that I am against healthcare. So what are you talking about?

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither."

You cannot have a free market without liberty any more than you can have liberty without liberty. This is obvious, so?

> "IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

So, if we had a free market, you wouldn't be "against" a free market? Hmm.

> "the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is
> mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged
> into one giant behemoth (plutocracy)."

That's fine, but this is not a matter of "feeling" but a matter of economic reality and empirical evidence and deductive truth.

> "i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism""

Perhaps some economic education will clarify things. Understanding economic calculation, for example, might be a good place to start.

> "i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you."

You're wrong. For one thing, while I do work at a significant fee for my primary clients, I do a significant amount of pro bono work, as a choice, and because I, like you, believe that health care is a human right. And that's a key point you need to understand. You seem to believe that, if the state doesn't take care of people, then no one will, and so we need to steal money from people in the form of taxes, under the auspices of "helping the poor," when in fact, the bureaucrats ensure that only a portion (if any) of those taxes actually arrive with their intended recipients while those who would willingly help those people themselves are deprived of the resources to do so, by depleting their income with said taxes. It's an unnecessary middleman, and faulty logic. The fact that people have, do, and will continue to care about people is the fundamental fact the needs to be understood. As a "man of faith," I would hope that you have enough faith in other people that they would care about and for others (even without being coerced by the government to do so, by force).

Furthermore, we have to apply the free market in toto, not half-assed. You can't have a Keynesian corporatists and an over-regulated system and expect that people will be be able to afford healthcare. The fact is that in a free market, the number of people who cannot afford my services would actually decrease considerably, because many more options would arise for those who still couldn't afford me would but need my services.

> "in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
> the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill."

The free market has ways of dealing with all of these. And yes some win, some lose. But in a socialist system, everyone loses (except for maybe the rulers and their lackeys). This seems, again, to be coming from a place of fear, a sense of helplessness without the government. But alas, nothing contributes to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness more than government does. Fact.

> "the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no
> better,possibly worse in such a system."

So, what is your proof that the poor will have it worse? How do you know? Or is this what you "feel" would be the case?

> "the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in
> place."

So was slavery when the South decided they wanted to keep it.

> "two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
> 1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
> 2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate
> drug prices"

1. Yes, the government would have a monopoly on health coverage, and by extension all of healthcare. Economic calculation at this point becomes utterly impossible. Chaos follows. And healthcare quality and service plummets. I have research studies to support this if you're interested.

2. Why not nationalize pharmaceuticals while you are at it?

> "i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit
> health care will still have similar results as our current because
> the poor and working poor population is growing."

Without appealing to moral superiority, allow me to assure you that there is nothing -- not one thing -- that is moral or ethical about allowing the government coerce, aggress, commit violence, and violate individual's inalienable rights to self-ownership and property rights, as you proposing with such socialist "solutions." In my humble opinion, a true man of faith would not stand for such things, but would stand against them.

> "the poor and working poor population is growing."

Indeed we do, and we all have inflation, cronyism, Lord Keynes' bogus economic "system" and government's meddling to thank for this.

> "i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done
> collectively."

By "collectively," I assume you mean "by central authorities," yes? Because the free market is, in fact, collective. But there is nothing "collective" about central planning. Except for the fact that the "collective" is mandated to obey the dictates of the central planners.

> "its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do."

1. Whatever your "feelings" are about it, there is an economic reality to deal with. Such a sentiment misses the point, and will result in hurting more people than it helps.

2. There is nothing "human" (or humane) in aggression, coercion, and violations of sovereignty, all of which underpins an implementation of a socialized system.

"The right thing to do" is to respect self-ownership and property rights. Doing anything else will eventually backfire. "People are not chessmen you move on a board at your whim."

Any one who is serious about contributing to solving and/or ameliorating the issues of poverty, homelessness, and/or mental illness and many of the other symptoms of our social detritus, needs to develop real, sustainable free market solutions to these. Otherwise, their efforts will be in vain (even if -- or perhaps especially if -- they are adopted by government for implementation). Anything else will not improve any of these but will only serve to make matters worse.

Going back to the basics, free market competition will always provide better goods/services at lower prices than the monopolies (fostered and engendered by the lack of economic calculations due to governmental intervention and regulations). Healthcare is no exception to this. Why would it be? Furthermore, why believe that the central planners/kleptocrats aren't profit-driven? Why believe that a "government" monopoly doesn't suffer from a lack of economic calculation? And what's wrong with being profit-driven, however you may individually define "profit?" Do you/I/we not act for what you/I/we consider the best? (Having faith is not a part-time job.)

Do you not act to achieve desired goals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't fully thought things through. But as I'm sure you know, "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."

> "thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few
> hours but i dont want to bore you. always a pleasure my friend.
> namaste"

It's not boring, but does take a bit of time to consider and understand all of the details. It's complex, and certainly a challenge to navigate your way through the morass of rhetoric, conditioning, and cultural misdirection that is pervasive in our society, especially when considering what passes for "news" and "facts." This is particularly true with regards to the economy, which is heavily politicized, despite being a rational science that can be understood if one takes the time to learn about its mechanism.

Since you signed off with "namaste," perhaps it would be worth reminding you that the first principle of yoga is "ahimsa para dharma" : non-violence is the highest duty.

Perhaps videosift isn't the best medium in which to educate people on non-violence and economics, but alas, it can be entertaining and, possibly have have some positive effect at some point.

Hope this helps.

@Raveni

I didn't know that Stand Your Ground wasn't actually used.

Substitute "self defense" for "stand your ground" and my LOGIC stands. Semantics is definitely faulty. Logic is still sound.

awwww..did the big bad man on the internet hurt your feelings? How can you have possibly survived the internet for this long with such thin skin. Your "hurt" feelings are just another attempt at distraction and use of emotional manipulation.

No one cares about this argument eh? hrm, that's funny, *you* cared enough to reply to perpetuate it. Again...and again....and again. So, another failed argument. You have a decision to make. I hope you make the correct one.

Lets summarize shall we? You haven't demonstrated how more gun control makes anyone less free, you haven't defined what freedom is or how you even measure it. You keep attempting to evade these questions and tug at heart strings by using words like freedom, and coercion to attempt to manipulate the argument. You make repeated false equivalencies. And you have made no attempt to justify why the right to bear arms is exempt from requirements and other controls the same way other rights and freedoms have requirements and controls.

I answered your question yet you continue to pretend otherwise. I showed you numerous examples of requirements before freedoms and rights are granted and no one is claiming they are less free because of them. You make the claim that people are less free because of gun control but you REPEATEDLY fail to demonstrate how other than to suggest we should be an anarchy. Who cares how many people suffer, they'll learn their lesson eventually right?? right?? Sorry, we tried anarchy, didn't work..we moved on. Just because you wrapped your claim in the form of a question doesn't mean shit other than you're really to play Jeopardy with Alex Trebek. You're still making a claim that people will be less responsible with less freedom. Its your claim, you need to prove it. I've said this before and you still haven't done it.

Debate??!! Who said this was a debate? This is an internet forum. This is merely someone calling another person out on their BS I guess we can add strawman to the list of your logical fallacies now. That and you're making another attempt at distraction. There are actual rules in debate. Oh wait, you think rules take away freedom so I guess you won't be participating.

Don't cry foul, don't whine about name calling...be an adult and own up to your role in this. Suck it up. You chose to step into this and I called out your faulty logic. You made your bed, now lie in it. You claim it's pointless...yet you keep responding and asking for more. You can continue going in circles and bending and twisting your rationalizations as you go, or you can make an alternative choice. Put up or shut up.

Take your own advice. You have freedom and it appears that you have made a mistake. I am awaiting you to learn your lesson.

It's up to you amigo.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@jwray
Thanks for clarifying your use of the terms. I'd just like to point out that the way you use the term is not the way that many others (including myself) define it, which is why I linked to the Wikipedia site in my previous post because I think that site does a good job of both describing the different "meanings" attributed to the word "faith" and also cataloging (in very general terms) how the various religions of the world consider faith in their respective worldviews. It's a good read, so I hope you'll check it out.


If someone has questioned their religion and come to the conclusion that there is a good reason to believe it (=evidence), that is not faith. That is faulty logic.

Believing in something for any reason other than being convinced of its truth is an impossibility for anyone who is honest with himself (you know, one of the many flaws in Pascal's wager is that a man cannot simply will himself to believe something for a wager). Being convinced of the truth of something without having any evidence for it is illogical.

@shinyblurry

PART 1 OF 2

Logical discourse
It seems we disagree on what logical discourse is and requires. You probably know most of this already, but please go through it carefully and see if you can spot the places where we differ. I'm stating all this part as logical fact, not my opinion, so go ahead and trash it if you think anything I have said is logically false. Also, as per your advice, I read everything you say as if you're a smarter person, and humbly request you do the same.

About syllogisms. They have at least three parts. One part, the last, is the conclusion. The logic goes that if all the other parts (the premises) are true, then the conclusion must also be true. The relationship among the truth values can be determined logically before proving anything using the rules of formal logic:

One common formulation goes like this:

Premise 1: "If A is not true, then B is not true." (Necessarily entailed by this premise is: "If B is true, A is true.")
Premise 2: "B is true."
Conclusion: "A is true."

It doesn't matter what A and B are, so long as they are statements with truth values. Anything put into that framework will suffice.

Now, let's make it apply to Craig's argument:

Let A = "God exists."
Let B = "Objective moral values exist."

So, if it can be proven that OMVs cannot exist without God (premise 1), AND it can be proven that OMVs exist (premise 2), then God, ipso facto, exists. This is airtight. I think we agree and are clear to this point.

Nothing is proven yet though, because neither premise is yet proven correct. Both must be proven correct for the conclusion to be proven.

The ontological proof process exists to prove that one particular conclusion, that God exists, is true; it's not about seeing who has the best theory about morality or evil. Those are just tools used in the argument. Morality and evil are interesting arguments on their own, but in this situation, all Craig is doing with them is proving God's existence. The premises are either all proven correct, or they aren't all proven correct. If they're not all proven correct, then the conclusion that rests on them isn't proven correct either.

You or others may want to propose an alternate theory for the phenomenon, but lack of such a theory is not proof, nor even an indication that the first theory is correct. "I've never seen a better theory," is likewise not proof of anything. The belief that the best (or only) theory is necessarily correct is false. Even if you're just saying that God's existence is the best theory for the existence of OMVs, that still proves nothing. Even if that theory were objectively the best theory (which can be measured), it still wouldn't make it necessarily true.

Further, the fact that someone has never seen disproof of a premise similarly proves nothing, and not just because it's anecdotal. Even if nobody anywhere ever has disproven a particular premise, it still doesn't demonstrate that the premise was correct. If it doesn't stand proven true today, someone may still refute it tomorrow. Another reason a premise may not be disproven is that doing so may be impossible based on its construction. If the definition of the terms is insufficiently precise, or if the definition rests on other non-defined or otherwise unprovable assumptions, then it can never be conclusively demonstrated to be false (or true, for that matter), so the lack of valid refutation should surprise no one, and count for nothing in favour of the premise.

The only thing ontological arguments are interested in is proof of God, not conjecture, not best guesses, not probabilities, not begging, not theories, proof. And nothing else short of or beyond proof matters.

The Video
So based on the above, I take on the following statements of yours:

You can invalidate the whole argument [Premise 1] right here, but you have to provide a logical foundation.

I'm not sure if you mean providing the logical foundation for Premise 1 itself being false, or the logical foundation that the premise was not proven by Craig. Neither is possible, but neither is necessary, as you'll see: I cannot prove Premise 1 is false because that would involve objective definitions of God and morality, both of which are in question, and any random definition I made could be challenged. By the same token, I cannot demonstrate that Craig didn't prove it because Craig's definitions are inconsistent.

What I will demonstrate, however, is that Craig's proofs for Premises 1 and 2 are in logical conflict, and so both premises cannot be proven with one consistent definition of OMVs.

Premise 1: If we accept Craig's statement that "objective moral values" means things that are necessarily good or bad regardless of what anybody thinks, then there must be something else besides humans to determine what those moral values are. This entails that if all humans on Earth agreed that torturing babies for fun was morally acceptable, that it would still not be morally acceptable. In fact, it also entails that if all humans were dead, those moral values would still exist, but be meaningless since there would be nobody around capable of violating them. That fact would be indicative of a god or a higher power than us, if only we could prove that these OMVs by this definition exist.

Premise 2: Craig's (and your) argument for Premise 2 is that we all generally agree that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong, therefore OMVs exist.

Do you see the problem? To prove Premise 1, Craig had to define OMVs as independent of human opinion, but in his (and your) proof of OMVs' existence, he invoked human opinion, which, by the original definition, must be irrelevant. As soon as you redefine OMVs as something humans can validate, they cease to require a God to have determined them, as we could have determined them ourselves.

As Premise 1 and Premise 2 cannot both be proven true with consistent definitions of the term "objective moral values", the conclusion that God exists remains unproven.

And this is all that is required, as nobody is trying to prove that God doesn't exist, nor explain the existence of our innate sense of morals.

The basic trouble for you is, if you want to dispute premise one, you have to come up with a foundation for objective moral values outside of God.

This is faulty logic. God is one theory for the existence of moral values. Until God's existence is proven, or until the origin of morals is proven, it will remain unknown. I may or may not have an alternative theory, and it may or may not be better than your God theory, but whether I personally have an alternate theory is utterly irrelevant to my arguments against the validity of Craig's argument.

If you admit there is no such foundation, then we move to premise 2, and there you have to argue that objective moral values do not exist. If you can not argue it, or if you admit objective moral values do exist, then you are forced to accept premise 3, that therefore God exists.

Like I said above, you misunderstand how syllogisms work. I don't have to prove anything about moral values, nor do I have to disprove either premise. Craig has to prove that all the premises are true and consistent. I only have to show that Craig didn't prove they are true and consistent, which I did.

You may think that the difference in definition of OMVs is a trivial one, but it is absolutely crucial. Craig's proof of God relies on the existence of moral values that persist outside of our judgement and even outside of our awareness, if we haven't been shown the "truth" yet. But he can only demonstrate that they exist by relying on our awareness and judgement, invalidating the definition.

Nothing here disproves the existence of any god, but it obviously doesn't prove it either.

[edited for a few very minor things]

@burdturgler & @bareboards2

[Edit: Please note that the following is sarcasm intended to ridicule the faulty logic of disparaging protestors, when you yourself "believe" or would engagement in civil disobedience for a particular cause.]

Again, you're both dumb hypocritical assholes for sayin' that shit.

Burd, you for bein' whiny cause someone on the int3rwebz called you a nigger.
[Seriously. You ever been to the internet before?]

And you bare, for whinin' about sexism and trollin'.
~~~

Remember "A protest is an expression of objection.."

You both obviously should have just shut the fuck up.

All your drama ruined another day for new visitors who came to the Sift.

You're lucky Dag and the others are so well trained as to not have Instabanned you two for non-compliance.

We have policies in place to prevent those types of disturbances, you know.

^ Oh I just bunched up your remark with spoco2's there, wasn't even talking to you personally, just quoting your "me too". Forgive me if I missed your flippitude, and if my answer, which was aimed at spoco2 and those who might agree with him, made you feel misunderstood.

I like your analysis of internet discussions, I'm somewhat optimistic about swaying people to different points of view though. It's like a shrink, they might not have or need all the facts about your life, but, by listening into what you say, they might help you spot the apparent contradictions, rethink deeply rooted assumptions. Most people make bad assumptions and deceive themselves in their thinking. I consider arguments a way of testing someone's beliefs, somewhat.

Facts are very important. However, you should be wary of people who often recur to "facts" as a distraction from their faulty logic.

He implies that his margin of error is only 1% because his final answer of 9.88m/s/s is within 1% of the known acceleration due to gravity. This is faulty logic. The known value of acceleration due to gravity plays no part in the calculation of the error of his results.

His errors will be introduced by the distance measurements that he is taking in both his calibration measurements and the location of the roof in each frame.

He states that the known width of the building is 100m. Is this the width when looking straight on? Is this video looking at the building straight on? If not then he is overestimating the width of the building in the video.

He is using the height of the 29th floor and the height of the roof for another distance calibration. There are a variety of ways including perspective and the grainy, low resolution of the images that could lead to him overestimate the height of the building.

Any overestimates in his distance calibrations will result in an overestimation of the distance moved between each frame of animation, which in turn overestimates the velocity of the measured point on the roof, which in turn results in an overestimation of the acceleration.

His final answer of 9.88m/s/s is actually faster than free-fall! So he must be overestimating his distances somewhere. The question is by how much?

Around the time of the financial bailout a lot of people pointed and said "this is why we need government regulation" and "the free market doesn't work." Bullshit. Let those morons go under and see if anyone who's left standing will make the same irresponsible decisions. You're far more likely to make good decisions if you're held accountable for them.

While the collapse of the big 3 would certainly hit hard, some of the claims in this video don't seem to hold water. They mention parts and material suppliers as well as dealership employees losing their jobs. The faulty logic is the assertions that people who buy American cars now won't buy cars at all if there's no Ford, GM or Chevy. That's not likely, of course. If you need a car, you're going to have to buy something.

Parts and material suppliers can recover at least some of their business with the remaining manufacturers, who will see sales increases as people 'migrate' from American cars. Likewise, dealerships can start selling other brands. If I owned a Ford dealership, you could be damn sure I'd at least be looking into adding a more stable line of cars to my product line.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
Say NO. If they can't compete in a FREE AND FAIR market, then they deserve to fail.

I wanted to point out that it's not even a free and fair market; We impose tariffs on foreign automakers, raising their cost to help keep our cars competitive. These no-talent ass clowns can't even compete in a fixed market.

I never said she wasn't human. Just a stupid one. And I'm not punishing her. Just mentioning her flaws that should require her to stay away from a voting booth.

And I'm not hiding behind my avatar. I talk like this in real life every day, to peoples' faces. I once mocked a co-worker for his stupidity. Should I feel bad for telling someone to their face, something nobody else would?

"Cycle of violence?" Are we being a bit menstrual here? I never said we should crowd around her and beat her up. Just don't let her in a voting booth. Do one of those delightful purges of the voter rolls.

Tell me how you're different than this woman.

I use my intelligence to decipher the truth. If I can't be sure about something, I don't air my concern over a national medium. I also don't automatically give my name to people just because they ask for it.

I am not fearful of, nor lashing out at, this woman or others like her. I despise their right to vote, but that's it. She could worry about the A-rabs forever for all I care, but I don't like that she can take that ignorance into a booth designed for intelligent, informed people.

Bringing up your aunt's sickness doesn't pull on my heart strings, nor does it make her use of "nigger" suddenly seem like something not worth debating with her about. And no, I wouldn't care if somebody called my grandmother and berated her, because 1) she's dead and 2) if she was alive she would be smart enough to keep her mouth shut when confused about an issue. My grandmother spent every day of her adult life using her brain, reading books and newspapers and working on crossword puzzles to keep her mind sharp. She was extremely intelligent, without going to college, because she knew that anybody can focus their mind at any time. So nobody would even need a reason to berate her.

[...] why are you bringing McCain into this? He isn't stupid or confused. He's on the stage running for president.

Really? You think BOMB BOMB IRAN isn't stupid? Mr. "My Fellow Prisoners" isn't confused? If being on stage, running for president, makes you smart...what happened to George W. Bush?

>> ^bareboards:
^
You just can't see her as a human being, can you? You have to punish her for being stupid. What is that about?
And yeah, I think you are hiding behind the avatars. Why is my logic faulty? Just because you say so? My own bullshit test is to ask -- would you say the same thing to someone's face?
And talk about faulty logic -- why are you bringing McCain into this? He isn't stupid or confused. He's on the stage running for president. He doesn't get a pass from me.
Look, I don't like what she said, either. I am scared by the number of people who believe the lies told about Obama.
But if you and folks like you continue this cycle of violence against each other when we don't agree, we are heading for a dysfunctional and increasingly hateful society.
It is in your power and only in your power to treat the next person well.
Tell me how you are different from this woman? I see you both as fearful - lashing out - incurious - unforgiving - intolerant of "the other."
Would you want your grandmother to be inundated with hate mail and hate phone calls?
I was talking to my aunt yesterday on the phone. She is in charge of elections and registrations for a small rural county in a deeply red Southern state. She told me that they registered more voters in the past two days than all of last year. In the middle of her story, she also told me that it was a bunch of niggers registering.
Normally, my response to this sort of thing in my family is to say "I can't control how you talk. But if you are going to talk like this, I will leave the room." I have hated this kind of talk my whole life and have always fought it.
But my aunt is sick. She is probably at the end of her life. She is in the middle of her third fight with cancer and I don't think she is going to get through this one. She, too, is older -- older than this woman. She is retiring soon.
Do I get into it with her? What good does that do? Twenty years ago, yeah, I'll get into it. But it served no purpose to fight that battle with her under the circumstances.
Same with this woman. What good does it do to punish her? How is the world a better place? What does it accomplish?
Especially if you are hiding behind your avatars and anonymous phone calls and a choking cloud of self-righteous anger. That is just ugly.

^
You just can't see her as a human being, can you? You have to punish her for being stupid. What is that about?

And yeah, I think you are hiding behind the avatars. Why is my logic faulty? Just because you say so? My own bullshit test is to ask -- would you say the same thing to someone's face?

And talk about faulty logic -- why are you bringing McCain into this? He isn't stupid or confused. He's on the stage running for president. He doesn't get a pass from me.

Look, I don't like what she said, either. I am scared by the number of people who believe the lies told about Obama.

But if you and folks like you continue this cycle of violence against each other when we don't agree, we are heading for a dysfunctional and increasingly hateful society.

It is in your power and only in your power to treat the next person well.

Tell me how you are different from this woman? I see you both as fearful - lashing out - incurious - unforgiving - intolerant of "the other."

Would you want your grandmother to be inundated with hate mail and hate phone calls?

I was talking to my aunt yesterday on the phone. She is in charge of elections and registrations for a small rural county in a deeply red Southern state. She told me that they registered more voters in the past two days than all of last year. In the middle of her story, she also told me that it was a bunch of niggers registering.

Normally, my response to this sort of thing in my family is to say "I can't control how you talk. But if you are going to talk like this, I will leave the room." I have hated this kind of talk my whole life and have always fought it.

But my aunt is sick. She is probably at the end of her life. She is in the middle of her third fight with cancer and I don't think she is going to get through this one. She, too, is older -- older than this woman. She is retiring soon.

Do I get into it with her? What good does that do? Twenty years ago, yeah, I'll get into it. But it served no purpose to fight that battle with her under the circumstances.

Same with this woman. What good does it do to punish her? How is the world a better place? What does it accomplish?

Especially if you are hiding behind your avatars and anonymous phone calls and a choking cloud of self-righteous anger. That is just ugly.

hmm...I hated stupid people, regardless of age, before the Internet age. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, unless you somehow think that the Internet has brought out the worst in people because we're protected by becoming avatars on a screen. Faulty logic.

Imagine this poor woman, you say? Yeah, I feel terrible for someone who should keep her fucking mouth shut if she's so confused and mentally slow. She went to a forum, obviously littered with television cameras, and grabbed a microphone to convey her fear of an ARAB in the White House! Gee golly gosh, Batman! Not an ARAB! Because it would be so terrible if an ARAB was allowed in the White House! *clenches teeth and shakes uncontrollably*

If she's mentally lapsing, it isn't because she's old. It's because she's stupid. Bertrand Russell was almost 98 years old when he died, but his mind was a steel trap. Most likely because he USED IT. If he were alive, he'd probably tell that woman to shut up and sit down.

Also, by your logic we should ignore all the stupid things McCain has said, because he's only three years younger than that woman! Let's give him a break, too!

BULLSHIT.

>> ^bareboards:
>> ^thepinky:
She's 75 and they're sort of bullying her.

I love the internet for all the great things it has brought to our lives, including Obama being so close to the presidency. Wouldn't have happened without the internet.
I am dismayed by the internet when I read some of these ugly comments. The lack of empathy of a fellow human being that is often shown here is distressing to me.
Thepinky gets it -- she's old and confused. Imagine this poor woman. Just take a second and imagine what it might be like for her right now. She clearly doesn't understand the consequences of answering what she perceived to be a polite question -- what's your name. Gee, how do you spell that? She doesn't know that this might be going into millions of houses, filled with irate and unfeeling jackasses who think it is okay to harass a senior citizen.
So here she is, sitting at home, and I'm thinking she is getting inundate with hate mail and hate and pranky phone calls. I hope that I am wrong. SHE IS OLD AND CONFUSED. What do you think is going through her mind, what do you think she is feeling?
Oh yeah, I forgot. She's just a sack of skin to some of you. Not a person with feelings, and children and grandchildren.
She was ignorant enough to give her name. The shameful act is the posters, who put it out on the internet when they could have bleeped it out.
I fear they did a terrible thing to this old woman. A terrible thing.

I don't get what you're saying there rembar. Seems like faulty logic to me, or you've left a line out or something.

edit: no wait I've figured it out. Makes sense now. Sorry I doubted you.

I had to down vote due to the faulty logic used here. If anyone remembers there was at least 10 plus channels covering this. All of the major networks along with all of the cable news channels. That morning there were literally hundreds and hundreds of comments made by eyewitnesses, reporters, and so called "experts". So what they have done here is cherry picked one eyewitness account from Fox News, one expert opinion from CBS news, and one reporters comments from MSNBC out of the hundreds and hundreds of comments made that morning and show only the three that ended up being closest to what we found out later to be the truth.