What he said! And especially Fuck Nancy Grace.

Since when did Nancy Grace turn into a guy?

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.

Argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if billions of people believe a thing, it does NOT make it truth. Examples: people thought that the sun was a/the god, or people thought that rats spontaneously spawned from grain silos.

Did I ever say that because over 2 billion people are Christians, that makes it true? Though you could make a logical argument that, if God has revealed Himself to the world, and people are more inclined to follow truth than lies, that His religion would be the largest on Earth at any given time.


The definition for "evidence" that you used for your argument is only the definition as it relates to law (thus where it says "law"). Testimony is useful to us in order to piece together what happens for the purposes of trial law, but even then is highly faulty and is subject to the whims, mental health and capacity, subjective or erroneous observations, and other such mistakes or lies by those giving testimony. That is how people end up wrongfully jailed, and is also why you need much more evidence than just testimony in order to make a solid case against a defendant. Such testimonial evidence in a scientific context, or in a logical argument context, is immediately dismissible.

Are you really going to try to argue that personal testimony isn't evidence, or couldn't convince you of something? If you were in a building, and someone came running in screaming that there was a bomb in the basement and everyone needs to evacuate immediately, would you demand that he take you to the location of the bomb so you could empirically verify his claim before you would leave? No, you would consider his personal testimony to be sufficient and leave the area.

The definition you're looking for is anecdotal evidence, and believe it or not, it can qualify as scientific evidence. Read any medical journal and you will find anecdotal evidence printed very routinely. Anecdotal evidence doesn't qualify as proof, but I never said my personal testimony would prove anything to you. What I did say is that it qualifies as evidence, which it does, both in a legal and scientific sense. In the scientific sense, weakly, but that doesn't diminish its veracity, except perhaps in the eyes of those whose worldview is married to the idea that empirical verification is the only means of acquiring truth, a claim in itself which, ironically, cannot be empirically verified.

Similarly, the fact that our laws state that a person is innocent until proven guilty (ideally, in the U.S., at least) is an example of how the burden of proof MUST lie with the parties making the claim for guilt. Much in the same way that you MUST provide real, tangible evidence for the claims that you, and the Bible make. Your personal experiences, or the fact that a billion people agree with you is NOT evidence of anything. Example: The entire country was certain of the guilt of Casey Anthony, but lawyers were not able to build a case solid enough to convince a jury. Likewise for the Duke Lacrosse team rape trial. Thankfully, we require more than the incessant bellowing of Nancy Grace to convict a person.

What would you consider to be real, tangible evidence? I've never heard an atheist actually define what this would be. I assume it would be a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. Well, that is what I am telling you in the first place, that you can know Him personally. That Jesus will reveal Himself to you if you seek Him out and give your life to Him. A simple question: If Jesus is God, would you serve Him?

I, frankly, am not interested in arguing anything that the Bible says that God/Jesus supposedly said, unless you can first prove to me that it is the definite, infallible word of a god, and not a bunch of stories written and compiled by men who knew nothing of the universe beyond what they could misinterpret from their eyes and imagination, or who wanted to be able to control a populace by introducing divine rules. Which, of course, is something you cannot do without using circular arguments to refer back to how the Bible tells us that the Bible is true, or by referring to emotional pleas, personal experiences, offshoots of Pascal's Wager, or many other logical fallacies which fall apart as relevant proof of anything at their very inception. This, I believe, is what we are trying to get across to you.

The main point scripture makes about non-believers is this:

That you already know there is a God, and who He is, but you're suppressing the truth in wickedness. That God has made it plain to you, to the extent that when you are standing before Him on judgment day, you won't have any excuse. It's not my responsibility to prove anything to you, because you already know. My job is to tell you the gospel and pray that God would have mercy on you and open your eyes.

There is one thing I can prove to you, which is that without God you can't prove anything. I'll demonstrate this to you if you can answer a few questions:

1. Is it impossible that God exists?
2. Could God reveal Himself to someone so that they could know it for certain?
3. Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^Sketch:

A short post for @shinyblurry:

Argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if billions of people believe a thing, it does NOT make it truth. Examples: people thought that the sun was a/the god, or people thought that rats spontaneously spawned from grain silos.

The definition for "evidence" that you used for your argument is only the definition as it relates to law (thus where it says "law"). Testimony is useful to us in order to piece together what happens for the purposes of trial law, but even then is highly faulty and is subject to the whims, mental health and capacity, subjective or erroneous observations, and other such mistakes or lies by those giving testimony. That is how people end up wrongfully jailed, and is also why you need much more evidence than just testimony in order to make a solid case against a defendant. Such testimonial evidence in a scientific context, or in a logical argument context, is immediately dismissible.

Similarly, the fact that our laws state that a person is innocent until proven guilty (ideally, in the U.S., at least) is an example of how the burden of proof MUST lie with the parties making the claim for guilt. Much in the same way that you MUST provide real, tangible evidence for the claims that you, and the Bible make. Your personal experiences, or the fact that a billion people agree with you is NOT evidence of anything. Example: The entire country was certain of the guilt of Casey Anthony, but lawyers were not able to build a case solid enough to convince a jury. Likewise for the Duke Lacrosse team rape trial. Thankfully, we require more than the incessant bellowing of Nancy Grace to convict a person.

I, frankly, am not interested in arguing anything that the Bible says that God/Jesus supposedly said, unless you can first prove to me that it is the definite, infallible word of a god, and not a bunch of stories written and compiled by men who knew nothing of the universe beyond what they could misinterpret from their eyes and imagination, or who wanted to be able to control a populace by introducing divine rules. Which, of course, is something you cannot do without using circular arguments to refer back to how the Bible tells us that the Bible is true, or by referring to emotional pleas, personal experiences, offshoots of Pascal's Wager, or many other logical fallacies which fall apart as relevant proof of anything at their very inception. This, I believe, is what we are trying to get across to you.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/home

I would have figured she would have been all over this, as Cenk said, 'its her bread and butter.' This just goes to further my opinion that Nancy Grace is a massive cunt.

Nancy Grace is a pathetic excuse for a "reporter"

she was disbarred in Georgia for illegal practices, the bar had enough of her and ran her out of practicing

she was a suspect in the murder of her husband, and there are still questions surrounding the case and many think she had something, or knew something was going to occur but didn't stop it.

she was successfully sued and forced into settlement by CNN over the Melinda Duckett suicide the day after her interview with Nancy.

she slandered and condemned the duke lacross team and daily insults and trash talking and never apologized when it was found out the girl lied from the beginning and instead of showing up, she took a week vacation when it was found the girl had lied about the rape. Therefore 'disappearing' till the story blew over.

Her latest crap is she's screaming at top of her lungs and adamantly stating that Whitney was murdered that someone drowned her. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/nancy-grace-whitney-houston-comments_n_1282410.html)

Repeatedly gave false info on air on the Caylee Anthony case, to the point of fabricating evidence that actually got her investigated by the team investigating the murder all to find out it was "fabricated for ratings" she was forced to take another week vacation this time from her bosses at CNN who owns HLN.

She was fired from her old tv spot on a local Atlanta station for slander.

the lists go on and on and on, heck even Wikipedia has a loooooong list of her offenses...

she's trash that should be done away with, it only proves that media cnn/hln are 1 step below trash jerry springer type television and there is no longer any news in america only sensationalism for ratings.

Why would I care what Nancy Grace thinks? I've successfully ignored her ravings to this point in my life, so why would I change that now that she's not reporting on a case which I do care about? I'd rather she just keep her mouth shut.

**Mental note to stay away from any Nancy Grace vids you post**

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

I'm going to suffix all the titles of videos I submit with females in them with "....and shows tits."

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

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Nancy-Grace-is-as-usual-rude-to-a-victim-242

This is great fun, if you don't like Nancy Grace and the state of journalism in America.

@Stingray, need your services if you are around.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by bareboards2. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Nancy-Grace-is-as-usual-rude-to-a-victim-242

This is great fun, if you don't like Nancy Grace and the state of journalism in America.

@Stingray, need your services if you are around.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by bareboards2. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.