I want one with 4WD

Did they seriously stay there just to put the pumpkin cap back on?

They have different values ingrained into them, quite simply. But at the same time, if we are ever challenged especially in public about our ideas, we are inclined to defend them even if we believe on some level the evidence of the other side. It is a lot easier to give leeway for ideas that are already similar IE Creationists arguing with each other over biblical law, Atheists/Agnostics arguing whether evolution occurs gradually or in short bursts, but when two polarized ideas come together when would you want to give in to any, they are the "Arch Enemy" to each other.

But on another note, I have found a set of arguments to at least back down Christians I have been encountering who try to convert me. Mind you, the topic doesn't just change to conversion, it usually starts with a casual fear of uncertainty argument.

Their argument starts something like (Christian) : How do you know you will be alive tomorrow/next five minutes/a year/to see a loved one again? How do you know what will happen to you when you die?

Analysis: They are appealing to the need for certainty. Humanity generally wants to be certain in life about everything, uncertainty causes stress.

My response comes out something like (Im Agnostic BTW) : I don't know. How is one ever supposed to know. Why worry about it, there would be to many things to worry.

Their response (Christian) : With faith, you wouldn't have to worry. Faith is the answer. Faith allows us to be free from the burdens of worry.

(Usually theres additional talking points that they have but it comes down to that appeal to emotion for the need for certainty, anything said here would be considered their "evidence")

My general response (Agnostic) : There is always going to be uncertainty, to the degree that which it bothers people differs though. Some things you want to be more certain than others, I'm more inclined to worry about getting hit by a car crossing the street than a heart attack (I'm 20) but at the same time, I trust looking both ways to cross the street to be enough. I do have faith, just not the same faith you describe in a god, I have faith in myself that when I look both ways to cross a street and deem it to be safe, then it is safe. I have to trust that judgement.
Yes, it is true that not knowing can cause stress. But I do not need faith in a god in order to relieve it. I accept a degree of uncertainty in life as a part of life. But its not the answer for everyone, others need to have a faith in order to continue beyond the uncertainty, i'm just not one of them.

At this point only the most committed continue with arguments, others back down respectfully, I havn't had any emotional outbursts of "YOUR WRONG YOUR WRONG YOUR WRONG" but it could be because most of the encounters i've had were in public.

!!!DAMN YOU CHRIS WINTERHALDERS!!!

(Is he the guy in the video, I didn't get to watch it)

>> ^aceofkidneys:
I guess so.
We are exposed to MORE problem solving, not exactly NESSISARY problem solving.


Oh I thought the last point was that Americans are saving more retards...?

>> ^PHJF:
Hey, wait a minute... I wanted to hear the "interviewer" tear into Giuliani for being such a tremendous fucking dickhead. I'm sure it was just about to happen... right?


Sorry, but that didn't happen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs&feature=player_profilepage

Full Interview

They did have a point on the reliability of the joker's henchmen

Agent Smith has been thinking to much about the matrix we live in again

Sounds like he was trying to hire an underage prostitute instead

"special diet,I only eat eucalyptas leaves, you see, Im a koala bear"

Sounded like that lady was talking about Ron Paul

I really have to disagree with the burn victim scene, that has propaganda all over it.

For starters, when someone is covered in blood do you really want them to touch you? There is a whole host of viruses that can be transmitted with open wounds. Given that the victim is acting a little odd they have no idea how he would react. Imagine a few droplets of blood going into your nose, eyes, mouth and you are left with a virus, or even getting on your clothing and even with proper care inadvertantly take in the blood. Combine that with the victim acting "odd" if drugs were suspected, needles might be used, hence the increased odds of the victim contracting a transmittable virus. So when the video emphasizes the responders did not want to touch the burn victim, when it shows a scene of the father mourning as the voice of the officers expressing their concern over the blood, it isn't so irrational to be worried about the state of the burn victim.

There was an emphasis in the video on the term "good shot" when the taser was employed implying that the officer took pride in the shot. The "good shot" term was used to describe whether or not the taser made proper contact with the burn victim in order to deliver the shock. This is further proven that both of the persons interviewed used that term independently to describe it. I don't think the taser would work as well with a "bad shot"

Also does the fact that he was on top of the responder's vehicle not say anything about his state of mind?

I feel that the earlier videos do have some claim to accuracy (we don't know all the facts) and quite a bit have made it onto the sift (I have to say the way they treated the female victim is horrendous), but I find the burn victim scene to be flat out insulting in its delivery.