It will only be a choice of one international criminal over another unless thoughtful citizens ditch both parties provided for anyone to vote for, and perform the voter's coup d'etat.....The naivete that you have a choice in the matter without taking a real choice, is a systemic disease.You are not alone in your inebriation on the political-Koolaid beverage.

Try smashing a few televisions and encourage others to do so. It's cathartic and will free your mind, Neo.

Anti-Obama people aren't trolls by the way @ChaosEngine-They're either seriously deluded into thinking that they are not in some sort of state of willful denial that the prescribed systems of electoral chicanery actually functions as they blindly assume as is spelled-out since they were kids in elementary school, or they can see through the ruse that is, a government by and for her peoples.

Lump me in such a simplistic and obtuse category as 'Obama-for-or-anti' and you may or not, recognize yourself in the former category.

If there's a 'guy' with his finger on the nuclear missile (otherwise known as a false-flag event), it's the same guy or guys who called-in the drone-strike. Who is the 'imaginary' guy you speak of?? Ask yourself, is the insane scenario your offered-up, even possible? Bad guys, good guys? Gimme a break, you're smarter than that.

I believe that "ignore" is the operative and self-delusional tag word here. Keep ignoring the obvious. Seems to work well for some to quell fear of the unknown.

'Republicans bad, democrats good', a broken-record and at least 10 other peep's in any room of folks' discussing politics-as-usual, comforting "safety phrase."

All it sounds like to me is apes in a cage, bellowing for a nutritive meal and the freedom to roam to find it for themselves.

It's 2014 lantern-five-three, nothings a fucking toss-up anymore....It's an insidious program.

Choice and chance are illusory in the political realm.

hey Zombieater,
It seems you've been hit by the Chingalera hate. Don't take it personally, (even though he likely meant it that way), he's been going ape shit lately. He's taken to calling ME a stalker publicly, even though I have had him ignored for days now so I only see what he DOES now, not what he writes. He's private messaged me 5 times since he complained I'm stalking him, my only response was 'you just can't stop, can you' (and Comment hidden because you are ignoring chingalera.).
Sorry he killed your video out of spite, he's done it to me too, and is working on taking over the sift with his ridiculousness. Don't let him bully you out....please.
Have a nice day
Newtboy
EDIT: My mistake, it was Januari that had his video removed and votes transferred to yours...sorry.

Hi voodooV..sorry it took me so long to reply.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

The fallacy you mentioned doesn't apply. The argument isn't for Gods existence, the argument is that atheism is incoherent because it has no foundation for morality, among other reasons. Ravi asked the question, without God what are the Ontic referrants for reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

What you're talking about is pragmatism, which is to say that if it works then it is the best way to do things. Yet plenty of people have led long, prosperous and happy lives by exploiting other people for their gain. That's what works for them, so why shouldn't I emulate that standard of behavior instead of being self-sacrificing? Some of the most successful people who have ever lived got there by being terrible human beings. Basically, your standard of survival isn't about what is right, but what is right for me and that is entirely arbitrary. It also is an incoherent standard for morality.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

What's really interesting about that is that Moses was educated as an Egyptian prince, which was the most advanced country in the world at the time. He would have certainly been exposed to their medical knowledge, but you won't find a shred of that in the bible. The Egyptians were doing things like applying dung to peoples wounds, whereas the Laws of Moses detailed procedures for disease control, like hand washing and quarantine procedures, as well as public sanitation, and dietary laws which prevented the spread of parasites. They were thousands of years ahead of their time; we only started washing our hands to control disease in the past 200 years.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

You're talking to a former agnostic who once approved of homosexuality and abortion. I am not afraid of it, and I don't hate the people doing it. This is a clash of presuppositions; if there isn't a God then I couldn't give you an absolute reason why people cannot have homosexual relationships or murder their unborn children. If we're all just glorified apes contending for limited resources, then in that paradigm it may be necessary to cull the herd. I think the appropriate response though to someone contending we should eliminate vast swaths of the human populace to save the planet is, "you first".

But God is in control and this is His planet, and since He is still creating human beings, He will provide the resources to take care of them. It's the iniquity of mankind which is limiting the resources when the truth is that we have way more than enough to take care of everyone. Take for example the fact that over 30 thousand people starve to death every day. Is that because we don't have enough food? Actually, we have more than enough food yet we waste about 1/3 of the world food supply every year. The gross world product in 2012 was over 84 trillion dollars, more than enough to feed, clothe, house and vaccinate every single person on the planet. Those people die not because there isn't enough, but because the wickedness of man.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

God has three kinds of laws, moral civil and cermonial. The rules you're referring to were civil and ceremonial laws for Israel and not for the rest of the world. They have no application today because they were connected to the Old Covenant God had with Israel. God has a New Covenant with the whole world that doesn't include those laws. The moral laws of God do not change with time, or ever. And although we fancy ourselves as more enlightened today, the reality of the world we live in tells us that human nature hasn't changed one bit. Human nature is every bit as ugly and self serving as it always has been. If you peel back the thin veneer of civility you will find a boiling pot of iniquity.

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

It's easy to speak in generalities; if I have committed a logical fallacy, then specifically point it out. The one that you detailed earlier did not apply.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

I've watched the show, and again, I was a lifelong agnostic before becoming a Christian. I was pretty far left and would have probably fit in well with the lot of you not too many years ago. So, this is all to say that I understand where you're coming from and why you think and believe the way you do, because I used to think and believe in the same ways. Your mindset isn't a mystery to me. What I've learned about it is that God has to reveal Himself to a person before they will know anything about Him. Everyone gets some revelation and it is up to them to follow it. I received the revelation that there is a God and I pursued that for many years until He revealed Himself to me through His Son Jesus Christ. He has revealed Himself to you and everyone else on this website in some form or fashion. You would be shocked to hear some of the revelation people have received and turned away from, or rationalized away later. Statistics show that 10 percent of self professing atheists pray, and that is because they are unable to within themselves completely deny the revelation that they have received. I guarantee you there are atheists on this board who wrestle with all of this but since it isn't something atheists talk about (or would admit to publicly) you would never know it, that you're all keeping a lid on the truth.

I must be, if you sayeth so-This is truly a sad day for all trolls, including the ones who post non-stop political party-line rhetoric suggesting 'change' in the form of politics as usual, atheism is best/god is fantasy, and 'cry racism' fare, and who can't consider any transformative alternatives to planetary existence beyond their programmed, DE-evolutionary cattle talk.


Your all hairless apes in a cattle car sir, I mourn the death of art and freedom of thought as well as this sincere user's banned account.

A small group of trollish assholes run this site, who fail to see the forest for the fucking trees they have clear-cut to make way for a stultified meat blob instead of a brain that functions.

Yeah-Right now I'm projecting a thousand laser pointers directly into your retinas with the hope that when your sockets are free of those squishy fluid bags in the land of the blind, the no-eyed man man behind the dark sockets remains perfectly satisfied in the darkness of his own kingdom.

Believe me Sigmond, projection is as far afield of my issues with this particular round of banter as that dashing ape of yours is from knowing shit about that .45-

Um no. We respect women too much. Like the bible says, "Spare the rod, spoil the woman." We let them decide things and in turn they make us into little credit cards to be disposed of....sad...

But the solution is clear. Either get rid of our ape-like concepts of manhood or crush the fuck out of this respect-for-women-and-children-and-others bullshit.

Really amazing how intelligent and human-like those little furballs are.


-OR-


Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape!

Hey you, what do you see?
Something beautiful, something free?
Hey you, are you trying to be mean?
If you live with apes man, it's hard to be clean.

This is a prime example of the fallacy of "dog guilt". According to people who know better than I dog's aren't believed to understand contextual responsibility like humans i.e. they don't get the idea that they did something wrong but simply that something IS wrong.

So for instance if there is poop in the room they understand from experience that the owner will go ape shit when they find it. They do not however understand that because THEY did a poo the owner will go ape shit.

That guilty look/walk/hiding in the corner is because the Dog knows the human is likely about to behave irrationally. Every time there has been poop in the room or the owner has walked in on them in a particular place etc. the owner has hit them or shouted or whatever so they know bad things are coming.

The crucial difference is they don't understand the idea that its their fault, only the set of circumstances leading up to it.
This may mean you get some very limited positive effect from punishment as the Dog will realise that not going to a particular place etc. seems to avoid the bad thing happening but as far as understanding that they have behaved badly it wont get you anywhere.

Rewards for desirable behaviour are orders of magnitude more effective than trying to discourage the bad because of this. Dogs don't have morals they just want to please you and trying to appeal to their sense of decency is a waste of both your time, all you will get is a dog that's been scared into inactivity.

If you don't want them to poop on the carpet then you should simply reward them for pooping where you do want them to go. It wont take long before they only poop in the places you rewarded them because deep down all that little doggie wants in life is for you to be happy with them and give them attention.

This dog is basically just cowering and submitting because he's either had, about to have or has previously had an unpleasant experience relating to recent circumstances. It dose'nt know it did wrong but it does understand that the owner is mad/behaving crazy so it assumes a submissive posture and hopes the whole thing will eventually blow over.

Dogs aren't people, their dogs! :-D

Love to hack the 3 major networks during the evening news and play this ape's voice over that of the bobblrhead's for an entire month.

"I think he might well have started subtly fucking with a small group of bikers that was actually much larger and more aggressive than he anticipated."
Again, I called what you said "speculation" that he "might have done "X
I certainly can understand and see two sides of most arguments, but I can also see when one side is utter BS based on known facts. There is only one side here, no matter what names the family might have called the bikers, there's no excuse for their behavior in the least, and no "reason" for them to attack.
I ignore the core argument of your post because it makes no sense. you seem to conflagrate understanding their behavior and excusing it. I understand why these babies had a tantrum, I don't agree that's it's acceptable, not even in kindergarten.
You seem to misunderstand my position, it's not that I can't understand the gang of fags, it's that I disagree with their self centered, infantile, 'it's all about me' mindset that lets them get pissed off when someone doesn't allow them to take over public places for their dangerous activity.
People who are not in gangs do NOT have the capacity to act like this. Gangs are fundamentally different creatures from individuals.
I agree, if you asked one of the bikers about you and I, they would undoubtedly side with you, because you SEEM to be excusing and explaining their behavior (even though you continue to say you aren't) by saying it's completely understandable and anyone could be pushed to that level of action, and I'm calling that BS excusing, that's what it sounds like to me and others.
In this case you shared a level of one sided speculation in an attempt to 'explain' why the bikers went ape shit crazy on a family. Attempting to explain how it's justified to them is asinine, you need to explain to them how it's not at all justified. No sane perspective excuses them.
Your words lend themselves to twisting when you continue to argue that they 'might' have a legitimate reason (if only in their own tiny minds) then get upset when someone corrects you that you and they are 100% wrong, and they did not have a legitimate reason. Monkeys 'MIGHT" fly out of my butt to do my bidding, should I get angry with you when you say they won't?
When my high school debate adversary makes ridiculous propositions completely based in supposition and having no base in fact whatsoever, I use it against them. If they want to call their lack of ability to get a point across and have it agreed with 'straw man', they may, it won't win the debate for them.
I disagree with your position that they might have had a 'reason' to go nuts and attack...legitimate or not. If you're adult enough to own and ride a bike, you should be adult enough to ignore someone making a face at you or mouthing something nasty...if that even happened....and no one besides the attackers (and their supporters) are even making that claim (probably because it is not a legitimate reason or excuse). Grow up fags.
it is about good/bad, right/wrong...not just "why/how" for 99% of people.
It is also about fags and the bike curious this time.
You are 100% wrong about justification, it's not a personal thing, it's a simple law thing. What's justified and what's not has been argued by professionals and determined to the millimeter. You seem to be arguing that you can understand how it's justified (to the bikers) to surround and attack a family with a 2 year old...and your stated justification is 'he mouthed off to them'...and that's not a justification for 99.99% of people, and certainly not a legal justification. I understand it may be a reason why idiots without any self control lost their shit, I can only hope they think differently every time they visit their now paralyzed cohort and grow the F up.
I think ethics and morals are things society has agreed upon (for the most part) and are not things you can get away with making up for yourself, unless you live like a hermit with no human contact at all, or don't mind spending your life in solitary (again, like a hermit).

Shock cuuuffs! Partyyy! Exceluuuunt!
(din't they have these in Rise of the Planet of the Apes?)

I think we could use this as proof that humans evolved from apes, just listen to the screams at the end.

Follow up please...I want to see the video of her going ape shit on the cop that was just going to talk to her until she went insane.
I would also have liked to see her maced or tazed. As I understand it, they just needed to say the magic words, you're under citizens arrest, and they could have used any necessary force to detain her, up to and including including killing her if she tried to escape before the cops got there.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.