@rebuilder

I'm not trying to defend everything the guy says, but I think you're simplifying the nuance of his argument a little. He used the simplified example of chess to illustrate a point and then expanded it to another subject, female bodies, which he discussed in much greater detail. In real life, the example of chess would be expanded to include the option of not playing, or something like playing in a way that tries to prove a point to your opponent rather than just to win.

When he presents the argument about the Dalai Llama and Ted Bundy, I don't see how that could make you repulsed. How is it exactly that saying it's possible to be right or wrong about a moral choice naturally leads to genocide in your mind?

Moral decisions don't happen in a vacuum. They happen in a continuum of human existence. They happen in a factual situation. So, imagine your community is starving and you or a friend of yours makes the decision that to kill your/their child to serve the greater good by reducing the number of mouths to feed...or imagine someone who chooses cannibalism like in the movie "Alive". That might normally be considered morally wrong, but in a specific situation it could be considered understandable. Well, we all live in specific situations, and as a global community, that continuum of situations is constantly changing. The only way we can make proper moral judgments is to continually examine our situation and evolve our morals along with the course of human events. Even religions can change when presented with new information (Galileo, evolution), so doesn't that mean that information is affecting our morals? So, why not embrace and study that information which affects us so?

Is there really a huge wave of test impersonators using a Muslim Niqab? I call bullshit on that. I also call bullshit on the Niqab being an impediment to communication. They're not taking acting classes. Don't tell me you can't hear what's being said through a veil. It's not a muzzle. It's a thin piece of cloth. I hear my stupid neighbors arguing across the fucking street every day. If you want to make this about security you have a real problem, because like I said, the onus is on them to provide security and that means everyone needs to be identified before the test, but they are not trying to identify everybody.

" There is a difference between private beliefs/practice and public behavior. Public behaviors are subject to reasonable regulation regardless of whether they originate from a religious belief or some other idea." ... "The only difference between a religious practice and an arbitrary choice is how many people follow it." ...

This custom has been around for over a thousand years. Long before the foundation to these schools were poured. In fact, longer than many nations have existed. It doesn't really matter, justifying these rights is part of the problem. They already ARE rights. Taking rights away is the issue and you all should be concerned when any government starts telling you what you can wear.

>> ^jwray:
There are some issues with covering your entire face in a classroom:
1. It would be easy for an upperclassman substitute to take an exam for you. This is a common method of cheating in large lectures where the teacher doesn't know people's names. ID badges would accomplish nothing at all, as you can give your ID badge to the impostor and the exam taker cannot be seen except for her eyes. DNA, retinal scans, and fingerprinting are a little bit too high tech for this specific application. The most realistic solution is to reveal the face of the test-taker so that it can be matched against the picture ID. Voice identification might be a viable alternative, but it is much more difficult to match a voice than to match a face.
2. It impedes communication severely by hiding all facial expressions and muffling the voice.

Additionally:
3. There is a difference between private beliefs/practice and public behavior. Public behaviors are subject to reasonable regulation regardless of whether they originate from a religious belief or some other idea.
4. Rastafarians don't get exemptions from relevant regulations for their arbitrary religious dogmas involving marajuana, either.
5. The only difference between a religious practice and an arbitrary choice is how many people follow it. What if I decide that my new religion is skivinism, whose religious practice is to skip class every Wednesday. The teacher better not mark me down for it, or he's voliating my FREEDOM OF RELIGION! If practices based on religious beliefs must be granted exemptions from various regulations, then so must practices based on individual ideas. There is nowhere to draw the line along the continuum from individual nutter, to small cult, to large cult, to small religion, to large organized religion.

There are some issues with covering your entire face in a classroom:

1. It would be easy for an upperclassman substitute to take an exam for you. This is a common method of cheating in large lectures where the teacher doesn't know people's names. ID badges would accomplish nothing at all, as you can give your ID badge to the impostor and the exam taker cannot be seen except for her eyes. DNA, retinal scans, and fingerprinting are a little bit too high tech for this specific application. The most realistic solution is to reveal the face of the test-taker so that it can be matched against the picture ID. Voice identification might be a viable alternative, but it is much more difficult to match a voice than to match a face.
2. It impedes communication severely by hiding all facial expressions and muffling the voice.


Additionally:

3. There is a difference between private beliefs/practice and public behavior. Public behaviors are subject to reasonable regulation regardless of whether they originate from a religious belief or some other idea.

4. Rastafarians don't get exemptions from relevant regulations for their arbitrary religious dogmas involving marajuana, either.

5. The only difference between a religious practice and an arbitrary choice is how many people follow it. What if I decide that my new religion is skivinism, whose religious practice is to skip class every Wednesday. The teacher better not mark me down for it, or he's voliating my FREEDOM OF RELIGION! If practices based on religious beliefs must be granted exemptions from various regulations, then so must practices based on individual ideas. There is nowhere to draw the line along the continuum from individual nutter, to small cult, to large cult, to small religion, to large organized religion.

In retrospect I can see that it's hypocritical of me to cast judgement on your howto video. If you think it's art, sure why not, it's art.

However, in the continuum of what's acceptable in thumbnail on the front page, Tori falls closer to the OK side, and your howto vid is far into the "no fucking way" side. That's apparently reason enough to have a sift summarily executed by the state.>> ^gwiz665:
I'm not substantiating mine as "artistic"...[snip]

Observe and report. I'm sorry to say, but in most cases a Security Officer cannot act; legally without consequences.

You can only use the force continuum to stop felonies. Rape, Assault, Theft, and Murder.

These guys, should have acted but probably did not have proper training to deal with this situation, or had explicit orders to Observe and Report.

I watched it again. They should have done something about this.

So theft and assault, you can use strong physical force to gain control of the situation.

IE: Skip the verbal and soft physical and go straight to pepper spray.

Former Private Security, we were all to ready to act in situations like this.

Wow Enoch. Surly much?

- I never asserted anything about your beliefs hence the question mark after the last sentence.
I'll be sure to be more particular about my sentence structure and voice this time tho.

It's cool that you can see where i'm coming from on the second point. I'll expound on 1. and 3..

1. The intent would be to make a compelling/convincing point. Tho that doesn't mean it's compelling to everyone.

The batter victim argument appeals to my sense of logic..
It does seem abusive to tell someone they were born a fuck up, must jump thru contradictory hoops, and love some abstract thought deeply or truly enough. Otherwise, they'll suffer eternally.


3. I don't think atheism has some exalted status that makes you immune to all theist rebuttals.

I think you're construing belief or non-belief as definite absolute black or white.
It seems more accurate to imagine belief as a continuum.
These ads are pecking at those in the middle that could fall one way or the other.


- So if you're in the middle but logic is your bag. The abusive god premise might appeal to you and pull you into a more certain absolute atheism.

If you're in the middle and feelings are your thing. The pitiless indifference argument might sway you back into the church or personal spirituality.


- I only started a discussion with you because you seemed to be sorta naysaying the video without much justification other than " well that's dumb and would never work. And the people that made are dumb to think they're making a point"

All the comments above were just my two (maybe more) cents.

Get a time machine and go back to 1994. But be careful. Any things you do to her could upset the space time-continuum, and you may never be born, Marty!

>> ^gdepascalis:
I'd like to do things to her...

>> ^greatgooglymoogly:
The guy obviously didn't want to partake in the snowball fight. If people are throwing snowballs at him, he'd be correct in interpreting that as assault. Pulling his gun was probably his best option to get them to stop short of physical restraint. If he'd pointed it at anyone, that would have been stupid. But a person should be able to walk around in public unmolested, with a gun to back that right up. I don't think it was brandishing, and if any of those idiots sue him they should get slapped with a fine for assault. What a mob mentality.


Pulling a gun is a class 3 Misdemeanor and can be interpreted as intent to cause harm. Depending on what state you are in this can get you shot by another person with a gun. One state over, Virginia, is an Open Carry state as well as a conceal friendly state. Pulling a gun with out visible identification that you are an officer can lead to terrible things, and quiet possibly a shit bag.

Pulling a gun was not the first thing to be done. You are not familiar with the force continuum are you? Let me explain.


1 * Verbal command
2 * Handcuff suspect
3 * Use wrist/arm lock
4 * Use takedown
5 * Block/punch/kick
6 * Strike suspect
7 * Wrestle suspect
8 * Pepper spray
9 * Use baton
10 * Use firearm


Do you know why the use of a fire arm is the last straw? Because you should never have to use your fire arm. Going straight to the fire arm is a way for the untrained, and the power hungry to exercise their stupidity.

If a regular citizen cannot carry a weapon concealed in the district then neither should a cop.

Cops already get away with to much shit, so yea fuck that pig.

Energy Density, Wave Function Densities, The Fractal Nature of groups exploring their harmonics.

There is the SpaceTime Continuum, but its only inhabitant is Energy ! It's all Energy !
(tell me, what in this world is not reducible down to its most basic level as being just energy ?)

Energy manifests itself in 4 States:

1. The Radiative State - the EM spectrum of radiations: which move at the Ratio of Space to Time; otherwise known as the Speed of Light, but as Dobson says, "It isn't a speed of anything at all, it's the Ratio of Space to Time." Things are set-up that way from the outset. Light doesn't move at a 'speed' it moves at the Ratio of the Space-field to the Time-field when they overlap each other in forming the SpaceTime Continuum thru which it moves as we observe it.

2. The Special State called Matter - that Energy has the ability to assume. How Energy can assume the special state we call matter isn't understood yet, but it does. Protons and Electrons, and their still mysterious combination, the Neutron. For a neutron will spontaneously devolve into a proton and an electron in about 15 minutes if left unattended and not in an atomic nucleus.

3. The Electrical State - usually a flow of electrons, but sometimes protons. Electricity behaves in different ways than matter does, even tho it is made of the same 'particles'.

4. The Field State - the Electric Field and the Magnetic Field. Magnetic fields can permeate solid matter as if it wasn't there !, suggesting to my mind that it is perhaps partially in another 'dimension' simultaneously with this one. (not the best way to say it, but it's a start)

And another thing ! "Consciousness has an adjacency with the physical world, not an overlap."
I'm not fully able to explain or yet understand the implications of this statement, I need to ask Paul Dirac about it.

This is kind of off on a tangent that is separate from the question of whether gay marriage should be legal (and the answer to that is obviously yes unless you're an authoritarian theocrat):

The USA was founded on equal rights for "the people", except originally only educated white people were considered part of "the people" or citizens. The in-group always had arbitrary boundaries and always trended towards expansion. The meaning of "All people have equal rights" is a function of your definition of a person. The idea that all humans have rights and other great apes don't, is on the same continuum as racism. So your 10,000th cousin has rights, but your 1,000,000th cousin doesn't? There's a fairly smooth continuum, with the smartest apes being more aware than than some mentally retarded humans, and a vast variety of species and individuals all the way down to the simplest organisms. There's no good place to draw a thin line and say full rights on this side, vastly less rights on the other side.

>> ^Rotty:
Keep flogging that DEAD horse.



No one gives a fuck about JW, its just indicative of the sillyness involved in the healthcare "debates". Thats the point TDS is highlighting.
Joe Wilsons's outburst is one of the many low points an a continuum of ludicrousness presented by the republicans.

>> ^Rotty:
Or, maybe get a fucking job.

?

There are a few things about this video that I feel I should comment on.

1) It's a bit erroneous for QualiaSoup to claim that the spiritual or supernatural realms proposed by various religions are conceived as realms we have no connection to or ability to contact or explore. If that were the case, then all religion would be a non-starter. Rather, the claim is that there are points of contact--specifically, those central to the particular religion, such as the temples and oracles of ancient Greece, or the revelation of Holy Scripture in Christianity. These give us an "in" for something like an empirical analysis.

2) Skeptics treating God concepts as scientific hypotheses is getting a little tiring. It's not intended as a scientific statement; why should we expect it to conform to the standards of a scientific epistemology? It is, in fact, the primacy of such an epistemology which is under contention.

3) QualiaSoup's point about the inconclusiveness of miracles is well-received--but it is on the same continuum as arguments that we can't know if we are just brains in vats being fed stimuli by mad scientists. If an image of the Japanese Sun goddess Amaterasu were to materialize and defuse all our nuclear weapons, I don't think it would be unreasonable to take as our starting hypothesis that Amaterasu really did just finally prevent a nuclear holocaust. To be sure, scientific investigation may then question that claim and open it to further scrutiny which may or may not confirm the hypothesis, but that does not mean that, prior to such disconfirmation, we do not have at least some good reason to believe in Amaterasu.

All empirical judgments must be made in terms of our background knowledge. Part of that background knowledge is our knowledge of popular religious beliefs. If we have an independently verifiable experience which matches well with the religious beliefs of our--or perhaps another--culture, then we would have grounds to at least provisionally accept at least some of those beliefs--if only in modified form.

4) Finally, it is certainly the case that the kind of demanding pushiness that Soup criticizes is thoroughly unpleasant and unreasonable. Private reasons to believe in a God or gods do not justify that sort of behavior. His words on the problems with that particular attitude toward faith are perfectly appropriate. I worry a bit that the problems with the video will make it difficult for reasonable Christians and Muslims (since those are the two groups I see engaging in that sort of "dialogue") to perceive where he does in fact hit the mark.

If he's not going to phrase things in a manner that such people will respond to, it would be nice if he could present a few comments on the aspects of those two particular religions that encourage such attitudes and behavior. It seems to be strongly linked to monotheism--Judaism has less of such problematic attitudes, but they are still present, and seem to have been much more present in ancient Judaism. In polytheistic traditions, one tends to find a much higher respect for debate and diversity of thought. One need only look at the vigorous debates between Greek philosophers, who could agree on the subject of the gods no more than in any other areas, or the staggering profusion of religious practices and beliefs to be found in India. It is misleading to speak of such traditions as "tolerant;" the word implies that it takes some effort of will to maintain civility, when in fact polytheists tend to accept such diversity as a matter of fact.

Yup thats where i was. I couldn't remember, but yes.
I probably saw your stupid house. I should have peed on it.
Had i known about the sift this time last year and what a dick you were, we would have had to get beers and insult each other. We stayed in Mission Bay, and I liked it there pretty well. Also In-N-Out burger sucks.

Don't pretend like you don't want to hang out with me.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I know exactly where you were...that's belmont park (with a rollercoaster, no?). That gyro place is bomb. And that wave machine is RIGHT next to thewavehouse where on Sundays they do a house party in the afternoon til about 10. If it wasn't for the eminent hangover on mondays I'd be there every sunday. I live about 3 miles away from there, wow that's really close for sifters to be to one another without tearing a hole in the sift-space continuum.

I'd say next time you're over here to hit me up, but you're probably not coming back and we probably don't want you...:P

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
some place where they had surf boards and a wave for people to surf on. It was obnoxious and also some sort of terrible radio station was there blasting shit hole music. It wasn't house music though. It was like new rock shit that I hate. It was right on the beach and right across from the best gyros ever.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
The Wave or the wavehouse? I like the wave house...

(house music + sunsets)*drugs = awesome

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
i came for the gyros.
oh and the pizza

but not for that place called "The Wave". That place can suck my ass.

Fort Worth is the same way so I can't give you the golden shower that you probably deserve

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Yea SD does suck post anal sex discharge, but...but...well I can't defend this fucking place.

I can't apologize for the people here because they piss me off too...and I probably piss them off. Next thing you know we're all pissing each other off and here comes a tourist like yourself that walks right into the middle of this angry piss-fest and starts crying about getting pissed on...well fuck you, who fucking invited you anyway?!

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
well Rottenseed, i was in San Diego this time last year.... water was pretty.. people were dicks.

stopped at a place by the ocean to drink a beer.... full of pricks.

So.. basically San Diego can suck my cooter. (spell check is flagging cooter and suggesting cuter.. .oh spell check you don't know how right you are...)

I did enjoy the tiny Photography Museum though.

I know exactly where you were...that's belmont park (with a rollercoaster, no?). That gyro place is bomb. And that wave machine is RIGHT next to thewavehouse where on Sundays they do a house party in the afternoon til about 10. If it wasn't for the eminent hangover on mondays I'd be there every sunday. I live about 3 miles away from there, wow that's really close for sifters to be to one another without tearing a hole in the sift-space continuum.

I'd say next time you're over here to hit me up, but you're probably not coming back and we probably don't want you...:P

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
some place where they had surf boards and a wave for people to surf on. It was obnoxious and also some sort of terrible radio station was there blasting shit hole music. It wasn't house music though. It was like new rock shit that I hate. It was right on the beach and right across from the best gyros ever.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
The Wave or the wavehouse? I like the wave house...

(house music + sunsets)*drugs = awesome

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
i came for the gyros.
oh and the pizza

but not for that place called "The Wave". That place can suck my ass.

Fort Worth is the same way so I can't give you the golden shower that you probably deserve

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Yea SD does suck post anal sex discharge, but...but...well I can't defend this fucking place.

I can't apologize for the people here because they piss me off too...and I probably piss them off. Next thing you know we're all pissing each other off and here comes a tourist like yourself that walks right into the middle of this angry piss-fest and starts crying about getting pissed on...well fuck you, who fucking invited you anyway?!

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
well Rottenseed, i was in San Diego this time last year.... water was pretty.. people were dicks.

stopped at a place by the ocean to drink a beer.... full of pricks.

So.. basically San Diego can suck my cooter. (spell check is flagging cooter and suggesting cuter.. .oh spell check you don't know how right you are...)

I did enjoy the tiny Photography Museum though.

This is by far my main complaint about the widespread use of tasers in law enforcement (and probably everyone's I guess).

When you criticize tasers among any group of people you will inevitably get the witty comeback of "well, would you rather they shoot them?". This naturally seems like a good argument, because no one would rather we use lethal force of course.

But it seems to me that too many times the taser is used not as an alternative on the upper end of the "use of force continuum", as it should be, and replace the gun when tackling suspects armed with for example knives or bats, but instead is used as a replacement for much less invasive actions on the lower end of the spectrum, such as verbal commands or an annoying conversation.

I guess it can't be easy for the officers either, if someone who committed a crime - even just a speeding - tries to leave without identifying themselves they are of course obligated to stop them. All I really ask is that they TRY SOMETHING ELSE FIRST. Tasering someone really shouldn't come before grabbing them forcefully by the arm. Too many officers just seem to get, for want of a better word, lazy with a taser around and use it at any point when someone doesn't imminently follow their instructions. You can't very well tell me that if the option for tasering them wasn't there they would imminently go for their guns and shoot the person instead.

Then again, in many situations the taser is a damn good option to have, and I hope we only hear about the most outrageous abuses of it, but still, it grinds my gears, as apparently it does Colberts.