List of sequential reactions I had:

1. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...*deep breath*.....omg BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA..*wipe tears from eyes*
2. Oh.....uh..nvm...5 gallon jug....actually kind of awesome
3. Wow....holy crap massive sweatpants
4. Realization that this was taken over multiple days
5. Re-BWAHAHAHAHAH
5. 32 pack? No way. Oh yes.
5. Holy Ginsu those are sharp
6. Upvote..moar pls

>> ^VoodooV:


It's really rather disturbing watching atheists play the same "change the definitions" game that the right wing plays. The mental gymnastics required to rationalize agnostics as part of atheists is staggering.


The "changing definitions" parts of these arguments are what really make my head explode--along with it's weaker sister--the "No, No don't pay attention to the Primary definition, it's obvious that the Secondary definition is the correct one here." (correct because it reflects the meaning they want it to).

Atheists, take a chill pill and step away from the lectern for a minute or two--take a deep breath. We are with you on separation of church and state. Take "In God We Trust" off US money. Take "Under God" out of the Pledge. Why fight so hard over something which has no impact on you, or our common cause.

Yikes. As Ron Paul said to Rick Santorum a few weeks ago: I think you're a little "overly sensitive!"

I haven't "lashed out" at anyone, and I certainly haven't demanded information of anyone. (Where are those accusations coming from?) I called you out for posting an uninformative video (uninformative in the sense that, in an attempt to share a story about Anonymous' "exposure" of Ron Paul, you put up a one-minute clip of Sam Seder making generalized statements without any specific evidence—and note that other people in this comments section share my opinion on this), and I took issue with @dystopianfuturetoday's overly simplified discussion of states' rights.

The issue of states' rights is obviously something of a complicated one (this part of my response if for @Boise_Lib, too). I'm aware of the historical weight of the term, but I'm also aware that there's no inherent link between states' rights and racism. There are lots of people on the Sift who care about states' rights and who appreciate our federal system of government, one that allots certain rights to the federal government and certain rights to the states, and yet I've never seen ONE comment on the Sift that showed any sort of overt racism. (I haven't been around as long as many of you, so it's possible that there have been some; it's just that I've never personally seen one.) That should be a good example, in and of itself, of the fact that states' rights, for many people, do NOT go hand in hand with white supremacy. For dystopianfuturetoday to make that suggestion in the context of a Sift discussion on the issue *is* insulting to many of us.

And for the record, @dystopianfuturetoday, Ron Paul doesn't have me in some trance-like state of manipulation. I didn't vote for him in the last election, and I don't plan to vote for him this time around. There are *lots* of things about his platform that I outright disagree with, and there are a handful of things that I disagree with so fundamentally (his positions on abortion, climate change, evolution, his religiosity, among others) that I often question why I even bother keeping up with his politics. (The reason: because there are lots of his positions that I *do* agree with, in particular positions that no one else seems even to address.) But this whole racism thing really just peeves me. I mean, for magical Christ's sake, if he's a racist, and if he's in cahoots with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then I, more than anyone else, want to read some credible, vetted news stories on the matter, so I can put the issue to bed once and for all. But instead, I keep seeing videos like this one which purport, rather dramatically, so "expose" him in all his shameful glory ... only to be disappointed by the content of the video.

I suppose that frustration at being continually disappointed by these racist "exposures" is all wrapped up in my original reaction to the video (and its title). In any event, though, I'm interested to see how this new issue plays out. As I said in my second post, I want to know the truth about his relationship to these white supremacists; if it's damning, then let's see some good journalism exposing it as such.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aurens:
(And sorry if I came off as combative; it wasn't my intention.)
Yes, yes, you've been the model of poise and restraint. You've lashed out at me, Sam Seder, the site who's reported on this, and have demanded some sort of full investigative report be delivered to you, because you refuse to even try to answer your own questions with your own research.
Never mind that the link I gave you included a link to the full document dump of the e-mail recovered by Anonymous, you think it's "amateurish" because you didn't understand what they were talking about, or didn't like their tone, or some BS like that.
Now you're trying to castigate DFT for not contributing to "the conversation"? Dude, you've been doing your best to make sure there won't be anything like a sane and rational conversation on this video from your very first comment.
Take some deep breaths. Go google "Ron Paul anonymous american third position" and read some links until you have an idea of what's going on. Then come back when you're ready to have a measured conversation about the topic.

>> ^aurens:

(And sorry if I came off as combative; it wasn't my intention.)

Yes, yes, you've been the model of poise and restraint. You've lashed out at me, Sam Seder, the site who's reported on this, and have demanded some sort of full investigative report be delivered to you, because you refuse to even try to answer your own questions with your own research.

Never mind that the link I gave you included a link to the full document dump of the e-mail recovered by Anonymous, you think it's "amateurish" because you didn't understand what they were talking about, or didn't like their tone, or some BS like that.

Now you're trying to castigate DFT for not contributing to "the conversation"? Dude, you've been doing your best to make sure there won't be anything like a sane and rational conversation on this video from your very first comment.

Take some deep breaths. Go google "Ron Paul anonymous american third position" and read some links until you have an idea of what's going on. Then come back when you're ready to have a measured conversation about the topic.

ha!

well, let's just put this in perspective then...
26 of our 50 states took the obama healthcare initiative to our highest court.
wouldn't this be the same conflict of interest if any state funds were used to host any activity to which our supreme court justices were invited and attended? (by any measure, they are the plaintiffs in this case.)

answer: yes, by your very myopic and obtuse assessment... it would.

take a deep breath, pull your heads out of your behinds, and realize A. that this is one-sided reporting of a bipartisan pasttime, and B. that the members of our SCOTUS are selected because they are the premier interpreters of our nation's constitution, and therefore given the benefit of the doubt because of the long road and fractious appointment process that has brought them to their positions.

frankly, i don't care which way they vote on this issue - i live overseas. but if i were a betting man, i'd wager that we see a 5-4 / 6-3 split, both against the constitutionality of the current plan. this will clearly disrupt your shortsighted view of political partisanism.

seriously, don't bother to respond to my comments if you don't understand the issue, or are too lazy to do your homework.

rachel maddow is figuratively the unwanted offspring of a beck / limbaugh coupling, where they then pissed on the infant and put her up for adoption.

simply put: she inherited their style but has an axe to grind with their politics.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Let's take a deep breath and take it down a notch. @quantumushroom that is a borderline racist comment, please refrain. @GenjiKilpatrick I sense your frustration but that's an inappropriate way to respond and an ad hom, so please refrain. This an official warning. Thanks.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Yeah QuantumDickface, since her surname is Sanchez she obviously unloads the van full of pregnant undocumented immigrants at every polling station in Orange County in order to rig every election she's run for.
So @dag, if I heard from an anonymous source that @quantumushroom is clearly a racist & moronic meatbag filled to the brim with human feces..
..it's not technically breaking the AD HOM rule since it's only hearsay, right?
>> ^quantumushroom:
The biggest obstacle to job creation is the obama regime itself. No sane business is going to produce anything when there's no demand from consumers and this lawless excuse of a government stands ready to seize all the profits.

Sanchez - proof that Mexican illegals vote in American elections.

I suddenly had the urge to take a deep breath while watching this.

*gets excited about watching the current No 1 ranking sift*

*clicks on the big arrow to play*

"Sorry, this video is unavailable form your location"

...

*puts mouse down calmly, closes eyes and takes a deep breath*

.........

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU......

Eeeek! I didn't mean people to go nuclear! I genuinely think the daddy was trying to make his kid laugh and failed miserably. If some of you disagree, fine. Just take a deep breath, or something.. a drink.. a drink sounds pretty good right now.

@SDGundamX

*takes a deep breath*

Okay,you do get one thing partially right: while Harris and I are arguing one thing, you insist on hearing something else. We say "religion", "Islam", "ideology", and all you seem to hear is "Muslims". I've already repeatedly rejected your strawman understanding of our arguments, I won't do it again (when I said you should reread, I was not joking).

Since speaking plainly doesn't seem to reach you, lets try some analogy:

If the law of religion X, as stated in its founding texts, says that prostitutes should be put to death, as well as anyone who lets their hair grow out after wearing it short all their life; that exhibitionists should have their junk cut off; that short people are worth half as much as tall people, and should wear 10-inch highheels at all times; but "only" 33% of Xites in your country want X law to be enforced, should you fear for the state of human rights in that country (and for those poor, unethically raised Xite kids who would answer such a thing)? And what about the countries were such laws are actually being enforced? What about the increase of short people having their legs broken (in X and non-X countries) because they were not wearing high heels, so were "asking for it"?

Of course I'm not worried, why should I be? Look at all the "good" Xites are doing! X provides a sense of meaning, community, etc. Xites do charity, too! What? All that can and is done by non Xites as well? But why?? Where do they get their morals from?? And why would anyone want to criticize X? What could possibly be their endgame?? (you see the point I hope)


"Harm and misery" are subjective? Are you serious? With such a grossly unethical (and scientifically wrong) argument, I'm starting to wonder if you're arguing just for the sake of it, in which case go argue with shinyblurry, he likes repeating himself: I don't.

As for the "many denominations/interpretations" argument, have you ever heard a so-called "New Atheist" addressing a particular denomination instead of the shared ideology at the core when criticising religion? Why should that be in any way a mitigating factor? Yes, there are different takes on the core ideology (which we call by its name, be it Christianity or Islam), some more influenced by the progress made in the domains of morality and science (which are the same for all humans, i.e. secular, i.e. do not have their source in religion) than others. As I stated in a comment above, I'm pretty sure I can safely assert that the large majority of humans, regardless their creed or lack thereof, live empathetic and peaceful lives. Do I have to stress that that includes muslims?

Also, who's talking about "eliminating" religions? I'm sure most of us antitheists would love to be able to click our fingers and have all those backwards and inherently tyrannical ideologies disappear (and all the new-age woo and pseudo-science too), but I doubt any of us are so naive as to think such a thing possible. Instead, by raising awareness to religion's negative effects, we hope that people will eventually grow out of it, and speak up to fight (with ideas and reason; we're not the fundies) those who want such ideologies to effect our lives and others', especially when those effects are unethical and cause real "harm and misery". (srsly, I still can't believe you'd say such an ignorant, relativist thing)

You are not obliged to answer this post, but if you do, please, please, please, PLEASE try to grasp the arguments you are opposing; because if I get another strawman/hypocrisy-filled response I will simply ignore it. As you can tell, having to deal with such responses make me frustrated, and waste my time (I do not have the composure and patience of a, say, Sam Harris).

p.s.: "transformation of Islam into a political ideology"? Do you read the links you post? If you did, you might have come across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam


(Suggestion: don't say you have no intention of enraging a secular humanist and antitheist (that's me), and follow up with something like "I don't think I could ever[y] provide you with enough evidence to change your mind". Remember that H-word I was accusing you of? This is another example.)

sigh..Gods existence means that everything ultimately has a supernatural casuation..

>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't hurt yourself..and no, science hasn't disproven God. That causes more scientists to weep than laugh. Formally, if God exists all natural law is predicated on the will of the most High, which makes the source of all causation supernatural..which is why philosophers think of God as the "prime mover"
>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for any natural phenomena.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! deep breath Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!


Did you read the quote that provided me with such mirth? You claim that nothing has been proven to not have a supernatural basis! Do you think scientists are still scratching their heads over what lightning is or that they think rain is God taking a shower!?
As for scientists weeping over what they don't know I seriously doubt that, isn't it their job to try and figure out what they don't know?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Don't hurt yourself..and no, science hasn't disproven God. That causes more scientists to weep than laugh. Formally, if God exists all natural law is predicated on the will of the most High, which makes the source of all causation supernatural..which is why philosophers think of God as the "prime mover"
>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for any natural phenomena.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! deep breath Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!



Did you read the quote that provided me with such mirth? You claim that nothing has been proven to not have a supernatural basis! Do you think scientists are still scratching their heads over what lightning is or that they think rain is God taking a shower!?
As for scientists weeping over what they don't know I seriously doubt that, isn't it their job to try and figure out what they don't know?

Don't hurt yourself..and no, science hasn't disproven God. That causes more scientists to weep than laugh. Formally, if God exists all natural law is predicated on the will of the most High, which makes the source of all causation supernatural..which is why philosophers think of God as the "prime mover"

>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for any natural phenomena.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! deep breath Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

>> ^shinyblurry:

science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for any natural phenomena.


Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! *deep breath* Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

>> ^Payback:

>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^dingens:
There's a short story by Arthur C. Clarke on that subject, called "Take a deep breath".

Now you're talking my language. Me and A-Clark (that's my little nickname for him) go way back. Like 5th-grade back. My hero.

Ummm... you ARE aware of why people think he moved to Sri Lanka, aren't you?

You son of a bitch. I had to look that up. I didn't need to know that!