@radx

As I mentioned in our previous conversations, my expectation is that once significant structural reform goes through, all the things I talked about before - much of the debt will be forgiven to speed up recovery for Greece and the rest of Europe. If that's not the case, then I agree that the policy was misguided. But it's the whole issue of trust again. Debt forgiveness certainly won't come before the fact, especially when a country like Germany is the main decision maker.

Putting that in perspective, I still think Merkel is broadly making the politically realistic best of a bad situation. I mean Merkel herself, from what I have read, is facing not insignificant opposition from a euro-skeptic right. Suppose she were more bold in funding Greece, was thrown out of office, and the policy abruptly reversed, what would that accomplish?

I can't speak to the specifics, but all those examples you mention of corruption and/or bad policy throughout the austerity process do not sound good. I have no doubt there were instances of malpractice or favoritism, and I hope if they are credible, they are investigated. I can only really argue on the merits of the broad intentions of the policy.

I would agree that the general attitude towards the Greeks being lazy and reaping what they sowed is unjustified. As an example, public sector workers did enjoy unjustified job security and there was a generously low retirement age compared to the rest of Europe. But much of the population didn't benefit from that early retirement or work in the public sector. From memory, actually measures like hours worked per capita were roughly in line or higher than the rest of Europe.

But unfortunately the brunt of the repercussions are borne by the populace who at best are responsible for not demanding more from their politicians because like mentioned before, the beneficiaries have emigrated and squirreled their ill gotten money away.

I took her video to be more skeptical of his historical claims, his assertions that he rediscovered them, and that modern techniques isn't valid, than if the trick shots work or not. She goes to show many of his techniques are still in use in some cultures.

Like others said, even from a fairly small knowledge window, it looked like trick shots. Back in the day you would have had to film on expensive film making hundreds of shots to get one that worked, it would have been more complicated to do this. Now with video, it is easier than ever to record it as many times as you need to get the shot that worked.

Would his technique work while hunting or on the battlefield is the main question. Take an arrow through the armor joints in the knee or whatever from his technique won't kill, but probably will hurt enough to take you out of the battle, which would be the point. Would it put a deer down though? Doesn't seem there's enough draw strength to really kill the deer or large game, rather it would torture the animal for an overly long period of time before it might finally die. My understanding of modern archery is to put the game down as quick as possible to minimize suffering.

We need to see him doing his things live. Don't let the myth busters do it, have him do it, in situations that would represent a battlefield. Have armored mannequins moving, some still, have him use his techniques, see how many of his shots would have taken that soldier out of the battle. Unfortunately, you can't safely test having him under fire at the same time since that puts a level of stress on top of everything. Have a deer mannequin and see if his technique would be effective at the sort of range you need to be at to avoid startling the deer, again at a stand still and in motion (generally you are going to wait for it to be still enough to fire anyhow in that case since it is rarely a matter of life and death to kill the deer or other game).

That all said she keeps saying archery is about what works, and it does seem to work for the situation he's in. The question is as I noted above would it work in hunting or the battlefield and even if not, would it work on regular archery targets live without many repeated filming attempts. Would it work at an Olympic style event better than modern techniques? If it could do better, or even near as good, as modern ones at competitions, then, even if it fails at hunting and battlefield situations, it could still be valid.

As an aside, the videos I saw of him weren't trying to sell anything specific beyond him perhaps. I haven't bothered to Google him up to see if he's selling stuff, or just demonstrating things for now. If he's not selling people on teaching in person or via video or whatever, then all the more reason to suspect he's just showing off trick shots the same way basketball trick shot videos do. In which case the historical research could have been lazy just because it was more in jest than anything meant to be taken serious. He could have been pulling a poe in that regards.

I like how she says "science wasn't even as certain as it is today. It is very certain today" and ignores the fact that science is very certain also of all the things they refused to accept like evolution, big bang, climate change...

Meanwhile yes, get vaccinated. Even if the studies against it were true, it in the end would mean less overall complications and deaths by more and more people not being vaccinated because religious nut jobs say not to and spread false information. Even at Copland's mega church, one of the biggest anti-vax churches in the country is now encouraging vaccination after an outbreak there, though they blame it on somebody visiting the church who had it... which is of course the f'n point, to be immune when, if somebody who has it, comes by.

Even nearly 11 years ago when my eldest son was born, we had a moment of skepticism over it, but in the end decided to risk it. He did end up with Aspergers, but we don't blame the vaccinations. And his own personal hard work (and those around him), he no longer needs an IEP or regular counseling. Even if it was remotely possible that the Aspergers came from it, still better the risk of that than the risk of what would happen if nobody was vaccinated and he got measles. The right loves showing pictures of the twin towers as justification for torture, how about seeing pictures of children with measles before the vaccine came out?

Thing is with these videos ("social experiments") and the people that make them is, i think most of then are made to generate views/income and so they show you what they want you to see. This particular outcome generates a large response much better then any other outcome. Call me skeptical.

However appearance will always determine how you are treated no matter what you look like.

Hey kceaton1,

I'm sorry to hear about the narcolepsy and sleep paralysis. I remember watching a video someone put out recently (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PuvXpv0yDM) that sort of explained what it is like and it didn't seem like very much fun. I can't really imagine what you're going through. I have a friend who has narcolepsy but it must be a mild version because it seems like she kind of winds up to it and comes out of it pretty easy.

In regards to your question, I appreciate you not writing off my response as one thing or another. In regards to supernatural experiences, I can see why you have a lot of skepticism as well. You have experienced things on the order of what you've heard other people call supernatural experiences, but you have a natural explanation for them.

Having a supernatural experience can be hard to quantify, and usually when God is revealing something to you, it goes beyond sense impressions. You could perhaps write some of them off as one thing or another but three experiences in particular stand out to me as being undeniable. They aren't necessary what led me to Christ but they really defy any kind of naturalistic explanation.

The first was from before I was a Christian, when I was into the new age. At the time I was exploring a lot of eastern spiritual practices. There is one in particular, which I wont go into detail about, that for a few minutes allowed me to see with my eyes closed. When I was in the shower one day I closed my eyes to rinse my hair and when I did I was utterly shocked and amazed to be looking right at my feet and the water falling down upon them. It was real time and the only difference from normal vision was it had kind of an energetic haze over everything, kind of matrix looking. It was otherworldly but still completely in sync with my normal vision when I opened my eyes.

I wasn't hallucinating because I was able to test it in real time by opening and closing my eyes and looking at various things. It was all completely consistent and completely real. I could see what was going on to minute detail with my eyes closed and when I opened them everything matched perfectly, and vice versa. I wasn't dreaming because I immediately got out of the shower and told my then significant other who would vouch for that happening. It didn't last long but I did experience it and there isn't a naturalistic explanation.

The second thing that happened to me is that is undeniable is that I was physically healed by a Christian praying over me. My left leg used to be shorter than my right leg by a quarter inch. I know this because I measured it a few times and it caused me to walk somewhat unevenly. The man prayed for someone else who had the same problem except worse, and I saw their leg grow out and even up with the other. When I saw that I asked to be prayed for and the same thing happened to me. I know it did because I measured my legs and they are exactly the same length. I also had to learn how to walk correctly after this happened. Again, no naturalistic explanation.

The third thing happened at my baptism. I knew I needed to get baptized, although at the time I didn't really understand what it was all about. When I got baptized, it completely changed me. The easiest way to described it is, when I went into the water I was one person, and when I came back up I was a different person. Different in this sense, that I was cleansed on the inside. Emotionally and spiritually, it was like a thick black sludge had been removed from the walls of my heart. An emotional weight had been lifted, depression and anger and sadness disappeared; it was replaced with an incredible lightness, with true peace and joy. This wasn't superficial; I was utterly changed. I was a different and better (healed)person, and on top of that I could sense the tangible presence of the Holy Spirit, from that moment on until now.

People have given me different explanations; hallucinations, psychotic break, etc. I've have a lot of experience with people who have mental illness; the things that happen to them aren't positive, they're negative. When they think they have entered Nirvana, their behavior is completely off and often self-destructive. Delusional psychosis doesn't heal, it hurts. One way or another, the whole thing is going to unravel because it isn't real. What has happened to me is very real and I experience Gods love, care and guidance every day of my life. The Lord is good, and He is faithful; He cares even about the little things of my life.

I am a Christian not simply because I have seen miracles, it is because I believe the gospel. I know I am a sinner and that I need a Savior. I know that Savior is the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for my sins and was raised to life on the third day. The Lord has made that clear to me and I don't have any trouble agreeing with Him. He gave it all for me; why should I do any less? Before I knew the Lord I was resigned to a meaningless death. Today, I have a living hope. But I didn't come to be a Christian because I am afraid of death. I came to be a Christian because God revealed Himself to me, that He created me for a reason, and that my true fulfillment and purpose can only be found in Him. Since I have given my life to Jesus Christ, I have found that to be completely true, in ways I could never have imagined. My life affirms the truth of this scripture:

Ephesians 3:20 Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
Ephesians 3:21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen.

I'd like to think there's more substance to this than saying "Look at these equations, maybe the universe is an equation!" Because we've all done that... and what does that mean anyway? In a way, it poses far far more questions than it addresses. If it even addresses anything.

Call reality 'an equation' if you like, but what does that change, and how does that benefit us? Name it whatever you'd like, you're not going to get any information that way.

Maybe i'm a bit skeptical of sensationalism by television.

Your video, armored skeptic vs that megan fox, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I like the Armored Skeptic's title better, "Nut at the Museum".

She's not a skeptic by any reasonable definition. She's a denier. There's a difference, which you yourself cover. I believe we do everyone a disservice by considering arguments such as she makes to be valid in any way. Let's call a spade a fucking shovel, and avoid some of the (often intentional) confusion.

I do appreciate her skepticism, but she gets so worked up about it I think she is a little batty. And if she used her own reasoning on what I believe are her religious beliefs, I think her head would spin off. It' s also brought up that there's lots of information available to explain evolution, but she's not willing to seek it out and this is also why she's not a scientist.

Like most of Sorkin's bloviating, this empty rhetoric is undermined by the incongruency of the climate change alarmists' own ballooning carbon footprints while attempting to use the government to impose force upon others' behavior. Until global warming alarmists themselves walk their talk (i.e., drive hybrids -- if they drive at all -- cease flying in airplanes, eat strictly vegetarian diets, have few if any children, and withdraw their consent from the worst polluter on the planet: the state), then no amount of freaking out, ranting, incentives, or attempts at policy will serve to avert the "impending catastrophe."

In China and India (where pollution is no doubt a significant problem), there are hundreds of millions of people who have far bigger concerns and more pressing problems than some remote notion of a "warming planet" or some looming "catastrophic collapse of civilization." (In fact, the same can be said for the majority of the population of the planet.)

And this is to say nothing of how ALL of the models used to support "evidence" for the case of a warming planet have ALL (not some, but ALL) been consistently undermined by serious skeptical science (PDF) while the claims of the political entity of the IPCC remain inconsistent with the data.

Since when do politicians get to decide the veracity of scientific fact?

EDIT: ALL of the climate-change alarmists' predictions, dating back to the 1980s, have all failed to come true. When this trend continues for the next few decades, there will be no shortage of "Told You So" moments that will undoubtedly be explained away by some unknown variable -- like the heat that is "hiding" in the ocean -- that, once "corrected for," will serve to further prop up this political ruse.

Never been a huge fan of star wars to begin with, but after George Lucas anally raped the series with those bleedingly awful "prequels", I have hated star wars ever since. So, I remain skeptical about whether this one will be any better.

@Taint, The skeptics don't "deny" that the climate changes. They are skeptical of the reasons why it changes, the claims of consistent warming, and the claims about the catastrophic effect of whatever is caused by human activity. Also, I don't think I need to go into the debunking of that 97% claim (science is not a function of votes or consensus, but of evidence). In any event, most of the "debate" about this topic is a waste of time considering the "believers" are mostly not climate scientists and that no one is actually doing very much about it in their own lives.

So, straw man opinions about so-called "deniers" is a pathetic attempt to substitute character "analysis" for actual scientific evidence of man-made global warming of catastrophic proportions. Evidence of which has yet to be provided.

So the real reason many people don't "believe" has to do with not being presented with actual evidence and instead being given false claims (97%) about "consensus" (which is irrelevant to science), and claims of "settled" science (also meaningless in real science), postulated mostly by writers, politicians, and activists with no scientific credentials.

No one really argues with the idea that the climate changes. But, rather, what caused the change, to what degree, and what the effects will be... Well, let's just say for now that all (not a few but all) climate models have been proven wrong.
So no, there are no climate change "deniers," but plenty of people, and many scientists, who don't believe certain claims about specific aspects, even when believers keep repeating the "consensus" canard.

I honestly don't think believers actually believe their own claims of impending greenhouse gas climate catastrophe. If they did, they would all drive hybrids and go vegetarian. Also, most "green" tech companies wouldn't fail (like most of them do). Why do the climate change believers drive their SUVs and fly to their holiday vacation without regard to the impending climate doom? They are polluting the air, are they not? By their own theories, they also warm up the climate.

Contrary to consensus claims, nearly every aspect of climate change is being debated by the scientific community. Can you name a specific aspect of it that is not under debate (without going into some general "climate change" "consensus" canard)? Such claims are too broad to mean anything of any relevance. What specific aspect? What about it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

took a whole 30 seconds just for these links.
go ahead..read them...or are you too much a pussy to realize that maybe..juuust maybe..your information is wrong and possibly should be re-examined.

the intelligent man accepts new information and evolves his thinking in accordance with the new information.creating a new paradigm.

the tool will continue to parrot and hold onto tired tropes because he finds them comforting and aligned with his understandings.

i like you man,aint got a single problem with ya but when you post ridiculous shit like you just did....im calling ya out.

why?
because i like ya and i truly think you are a better man than the knucklehead you sometimes portray here.

so..
/lights a smoke
lets go grab a beer and enjoy the warmer weather..
and the sucking dick thing?
yeah...that still costs extra.

A Physicist who does op-ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal regarding climate change with no peer reviewed work on the subject and whos foundation (Marshall Institute where he is the Chairman of the Board of Directors) has received a shit ton of money from Exxon.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

Call me skeptical.