This is why I put it in the skilful channel! @Deano, would you not reconsider?

I can't find where eating shellfish is punishable by death. I know Leviticus 11 forbids it.

Don't get me wrong. I think most self-labeled 'Christians' are so hypocritical that I don't even use the term anymore to describe myself. Most of the 'churches' are really just 501(c)(3) religious services organizations who's members are more interested in building their business than actually doing what is good and right according to the Bible they obstensibly believe. So I understand where alot of this anger and confusion comes from.

But if there is something that doesn't make sense then search it out with honesty and humility, not anger and spite towards someone who's wronged you who held the moniker 'Christian'. Just be consistent, be humble, and seek the God who is Good (as opposed to the modern American Christian God who glorys in wickedness). If something about that God seems bad, then reconsider! No one has a monopoly on your mind and your concept of God. Think on His character and His motives - not for a moment but for years.

The Bible does present a consistent history of God and His dealings with man if you just ignore what everyone else says about the book and read it yourself with humility and honesty.

Want! And to think they werent going to release this on PC. So glad they reconsidered.

I kinda don't know what to make of this vid. At one point, she makes an appeal to others not to be apathetic to anonymous Internet comments, but I don't see how starting a flame war every time someone makes an inappropriate comment solves the underlying problem.

Plus, I don't see a person who makes those kinds of comments seriously reconsidering them after watching this vid. And if, as she says, those kinds of comments are a small minority of the feedback she receives I'm not sure exactly what the problem is.

She equates it to bullying, but that reminds me of this Sift where the reporter did the same thing after receiving a single email about her weight (a vid which produced a pretty extensive VS debate thread on the topic):

http://videosift.com/video/News-Anchor-Responds-to-Viewer-Email-Calling-Her-Fat?loadcomm=1

So... yeah. Some people are mean/clueless/crude/outright insulting/sexist on the Internet. She seems to think this is preventing women from keeping vlogs about STEM topics, but doesn't really offer any evidence to support this.

In fact, if her supposition were true wouldn't you see that trend across YouTube? Basically if it were true, YouTube vlogs would be dominated by men since the women are too what... delicate? Afraid of dealing with negative comments? In a way, her hypothesis itself seems kind of insulting to women, suggesting that they wilt in the face of these kinds of comments and just give up.

He's been retiring since Mononoke... Maybe this time it's for real, but I'll believe it when he retires from life, which hopefully is not for awhile yet so that he has the time to reconsider yet again

The alternative, as far as I am familiar with the counterargument to this viewpoint, would have been to loosen the requirement of "unconditional surrender" of Japan, and possibly to demonstrate the bomb by dropping it on an unpopulated area. Inviting Japanese scientists to a staging ground for a controlled demonstration was also on the books.

Now, assuming the US top brass were convinced Japan was not going to surrender, the argument presented here is quite valid. Bombing a live target certainly had the most shock value, and the bombs were likely in quite limited supply. (I confess, I don't know how many there were at the time.) A continued conventional war would have been horrendous.

But... Were the Japanese really unwilling to surrender, and if so, why? According to what I've read... Well, let me just quote the story, I've seen this in a number of texts:

"At the conclusion of the conference, Roosevelt and Churchill held a press conference. Roosevelt said that he and Churchill…

…were determined to accept nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Germany, Japan, and Italy…

Churchill said later that he was surprised by this statement. Churchill adds that he was told by Harry Hopkins that the President said to him:

…then suddenly the Press Conference was on, and Winston and I had had no time to prepare for it; and the thought popped into my mind that they had called Grant “Old Unconditional Surrender,” and the next thing I knew I had said it."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/04/jonathan-goodwin/roosevelt-demands-unconditionalsurrender/

It was Jonathan Glover who I first read giving this account of events, but I don't remember what his source was. The argument he and others make, though, is that the Japanese did signal their willingness to surrender, but were not willing to do so unconditionally. This is because they feared the emperor might have been deposed and put to trial, which was simply unthinkable to them. If this is true, then dropping the bombs may have been unnecessary and even before the bombs, the war effort in the Pacific could have been ended through diplomatic means.

All this does leave one with some disconcerting questions. Would Allied leaders really have refused to reconsider their demands of Japan simply due to prestige and the need to show resolve? Was there no diplomatic backchannel? Certainly the fog of war must have played a part in the decisions made. I haven't been able to find a source beyond hearsay for what, exactly, the Japanese diplomatic position on surrender was. Considering this debate still goes on, no such source is likely to surface.

What stands out here, to me, as the saddest thing is: it seems countless lives were lost for lack of solid information and communication between enemies. Had Japan and the Allies been able to negotiate further, had the allies dared show their nuclear hand, had they made it possible for the emperor (while not a nice guy by any means) to be protected, how many lives could have been saved? Unfortunately, no-one has the benefit of hindsight when it's most needed.

I can't help but think of the Cuban missile crisis - what would have happened, had a similar failure to communicate occurred at that time? It was very close...

Hello Bjorn,

Please don't leave!! The comments were nothing personal towards you...they didn't like the video because it went against the site's rules and it wouldn't have mattered who posted it...if you hadn't of been the one to post that one, I'm certain it would have been by someone else here. I believe the ban was only to be temporary because they thought they could delete the video for you that way. Some of the people here can be a bit insensitive and I feel awful that you are so upset.

You post some awesome videos and are a really nice person and we don't want to lose you! I hope you'll reconsider.

I am bradley manning.....reminiscent of Spartacus.

You know what happened to that guy?

Yeah....maybe you guys should reconsider all callin yourselves Bradley Manning

As a Canadian I was always a little ashamed that we chose a beaver as one of our national symbols, while America chose an eagle. If beaver's frequently attack and chase off Russians all day, I may have to reconsider.

The point you appear to be making, shinyblurry, is that science/Atheism (which are not the same thing but I see where you're coming from) refuses to consider theological arguments.

I have. I was technically a Christian, when I was too young to make up my own mind. Over nearly 10 years I went from believing every word of the Bible, through doubting more and more of it until realising that I no longer believed at all, that it was of moderate historical value only. I was no longer Christian. During this process, I considered theological arguments and found them all wanting.

I continue to read and consider such matters and I've continued to find the non-theological explanations for events and trends to be massively more convincing.

I think this is the same for most people with similar beliefs - these arguments have been considered and have been found unconvincing. The reason I am reluctant to engage in discussion is because the discussion has been had; nothing has changed since. The discussions become the same circular logic that contributed to me losing my faith in Christianity. The same discussions as have been happening for hundreds of years.

I'm perfectly prepared to consider the topic and reconsider how I think the world works, my world view if you like. If there was anything to discuss, I'd be happy to do so. But there's nothing to discuss because your arguments have been made many times by many people over many centuries and they're pretty much talked out. I have listened, I have discussed and I have considered. And I disagree.

I'm not Atheist because I am 100% certain that there can no be a God in any way. I am Atheist because of Russel's teapot. I've found no evidence and no argument which is even slightly convincing for any religion.

Blah blah abuse of power, abuse of this yadda yadda yadda mindless blather.

A) He was there for something simple, like a traffic ticket.

B) He was a total prick, douchebag, asshole and completely uncooperative.

C) Cameras ARE NOT PERMITTED inside courtrooms for PRIVACY. Dumbass award again. He thinks he can waltz in and violate everyone's privacy and harass another person because he has "rights"?

D) The officer didn't express ANY type of abuse whatsoever. If you think he did, sorry, but you might want to reconsider who's been brainwashed.

The officer had a choice: potentially violent altercation with a young man in a confined space where others could potentially be injured, or tazer him. If you think the officer is wrong for not allowing this to escalate and potentially injure others, then you really need to reassess your concept of police control and abuse of power.

The officer told the douchebag calmly, and concisely, that he was NOT permitted to pass that point with the video camera. The douchebag tried to push his way through, and surprisingly, the officer DID HIS JOB and kept the man from entering WITHOUT using excessive force.

Unless, of course, you think an officer touching a person who claims to NOT be a US Citizen is abuse. The douchebag began escalating the situation further until, well, I'm sure his biggest worry now isn't simply a speeding ticket anymore but a list of actual 1st Degree Misdemeanors and possibly a Felony.

So yes, I AM PERFECTLY FINE with the officer's use of a tazer to restrain the individual. And the reason I am, is thankfully the douchebag was recording it and we now have proof of who was in the wrong.

Maybe you should reconsider just what "succinct" means, before you start insulting people who disagree with you.

The entire thrust of your comment was an implication that it's perfectly reasonable to outlaw pit bulls. And you're wrong, it's as simple as that. public flogging or pillorying the people who abuse them, and make that action widely known, and you'd have a lot few abused dogs who are vicious (of any breed).

In the meantime, I don't have time to spare on assholes, so if you intend to continue behaving like one, please let me know.

I think this might be the first time I've actually seen TYT backing off on a hot issue and carefully reconsidering the legitimacy of their sources before going on a rage spree. Usually they just go off on a red-faced rant and end the segment with 'fuck this government, fuck this country, the whole thing is fucked'.

>> ^heathen:

>> ^Lolthien:
Anyone who voted for this needs to reconsider their direction in life. I can't tell if this is meant to be funny, or if it's a parody of comics from 1988.

I upvoted the video, please tell me more about how I should reconsider my direction in life.


See the life you have been living and how that has affected what you find funny? You may want to adjust to a modern lifestyle and shift your sense of humor accordingly.



Or not. Not really my business.



Seriously, unless this guy is being ironic, I could not find a single funny thing about it.

>> ^Lolthien:

Anyone who voted for this needs to reconsider their direction in life. I can't tell if this is meant to be funny, or if it's a parody of comics from 1988.


I upvoted the video, please tell me more about how I should reconsider my direction in life.