Thanks for the tip

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
This works quite well for chopping a video.

In reply to this comment by campionidelmondo:
whoops, fixed the dead embed. Tried to make the video start at a specific time but doesn't work?!

Will check'em out.

In reply to this comment by campionidelmondo:
Maybe you've just watched the wrong movies. He tends to get typecast alot, but he's a decent actor.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181984/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419749/

In reply to this comment by NinjaInHeat:
I'll be honest I went into this with every intention of hating the guy before he even opened his mouth, it's nice to be surprised, he seems really cool, too bad he can't act for shit.

Maybe you've just watched the wrong movies. He tends to get typecast alot, but he's a decent actor.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181984/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419749/

In reply to this comment by NinjaInHeat:
I'll be honest I went into this with every intention of hating the guy before he even opened his mouth, it's nice to be surprised, he seems really cool, too bad he can't act for shit.

This works quite well for chopping a video.

In reply to this comment by campionidelmondo:
whoops, fixed the dead embed. Tried to make the video start at a specific time but doesn't work?!

Ooops, thanks. Fixed it now

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
It's dead

In reply to this comment by campionidelmondo:
*promote

It's dead

In reply to this comment by campionidelmondo:
*promote

[redacted]

Everyone here is missing the point. You think it is a coincidence that May 21st is a Saturday? This is obviously just one giant troll so they can throw a Friday night, end of the week/world party that will rock your nipples off.

I for one plan on starting early.

>> ^therealblankman:

Saw it Friday night... would have walked out and demanded my money back but was with other people- one of whom actually enjoyed it.
Retard.


Did you tell them you hated it?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How is what these guys said any different than what the 'other guy' says (and gets a pass)?

What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Politicians since times ancient have grossly extrapolated the actions/policies of their opponents.
[snip]
Bachman wanted people 'armed and dangerous'. Barak Obama wanted people "angry, get in their face, hit back twice as hard, bring a gun". I see no difference.

First, you need to source your Obama quote. I only found this as context:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Kinda sounds like it's a metaphor, does it not?

Secondly, that never became any sort of Democratic talking point or campaign slogan. You didn't hear it coming out of the mouths of everyone on the left every 10 seconds for the better part of a year, the way you heard "death panels".

Thirdly, have you followed the link on Bachmann's full quote, and read it in context? If not, here's more:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous".

Fourth, have I mentioned that this is in the larger context of falsely accusing Democrats of making up global warming?

So, the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection against the legitimate government of the United States, and while I suspect she would say "I didn't mean that", she probably wouldn't confess to any kind of issue with her word choice.

I don't see any equivalence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Palin's death panel is an exaggeration of the rationed care that IS a part of Obamacare. Similarly, Democrats accuse the GOP of starving people when they want to cut a social program.

Really? Neither statement is true.

First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement. Even if I grant some special meaning of the word "rationing", there still isn't anything even remotely like Palin's "death panel" in the bill anywhere.

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people? To be frank, I wish they would, especially since it's true more often than not. The closest I've seen is Alan Grayson saying that the Republican health care plan is "#1 Don't get sick. #2 If you do get sick, die quickly."

For that one to be true you need to wrap some caveats around it, but basically if you can't afford insurance, or have a preexisting condition, that was totally accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do I like the overblown rhetoric? No, but it is part and parcel of any vigorous debate.
No normal person takes these statements literally though. And trying to pander to the NOT normal people seems to me an exercise in futility. Moreover, trying to be "PC" using the outliers of society as a standard is an impossible moving target, and rather subject to opinion.

To a large degree, this is a response to an argument I'm not making. I actually really like overblown rhetoric. What I don't like is the way the right imputes sinister motives to the left. It's not just "they're corrupt and beholden to special interests (and sometimes mansluts)", these days it's "they're coming to take your guns, kill your family, make your kids into gay drug addicts, take your house, your job, and piss on the American flag while surrendering to every other nation in the world".

The left is getting pretty coarse about the right, but most of our insults are that Republicans are corrupt and beholden to special interests...and dumb, heartless liars.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no nice way to say this, but you are wrong. They were not, and you know it. There is no GOP candidate who would have survived 5 seconds if they'd been calling for armed rebellion if they lost. That is hyperbole.

I'd love to be wrong about this. I am not. Scroll back up to my first comment here, there are two videos of Republicans calling for armed insurrection if they lose. These two were small potatoes, but Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle both were saying the same thing, just a little less directly. Rick Perry has been a bit more overt, but also a lot less graphic (talk of secession rather than revolution). Not to bring the Tea Party into this, but they kept showing up with signs talking about "Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I put it to you kindly that this opinion is another symptom of perception bias. Would you not agree that from Glenn Beck's perspective his infamous 'chalkboard histories' are an attempt to educate and outreach? And quite frankly, I feel very little sense of 'outreach' or 'education' when liberals call conservatives hateful, angry, evil, nazis, corporate shills, mind numbed robots, neocons, teabaggers, racist, sexist, and bigoted.

No, Beck's not trying outreach with his blackboards. He's painting a false picture of history in which liberalism is about violence and domination, and entirely overrun by a conspiracy of nefarious interests. That's not outreach, that's poisoning the well so that it's impossible for people who think he's illuminating some sort of truth (and to be clear, he is not), to talk to the people who haven't subscribed to Beck's belief that liberalism progressivism is just the new mask the fascists have put on to insinuate themselves into modern society so they can subvert it from within.

It's true that the left isn't engaging in outreach when they're calling you names. I suspect you haven't seen much outreach, given the way you personally tend to approach topics around here. You don't seem like the kind of person who's open to outreach.

That said, if I thought there was a way to show you what I think is good about liberalism, I would do so. I'd be happy to give you my take on what liberals believe and why, if you're genuinely interested in trying to understand the way we think.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Sure - just be sure to allow that both ways. Criticize conservative pundits all you want. But don't get all testy if conservatives criticize liberal ones. And if you try to pin accessory to murder on conservatives, don't be surprised when they get their back up.

Yeah, I didn't. See, the right's been calling us murderers and tyrants quite a bit lately. They've been making the case in countless different ways that government run by Democrats, and especially by Obama is fundamentally illegitimate. Not "something we strongly disagree with" but a total break with the fundamental principles of our government that present a direct threat to people.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

Again, I'd love to see someone prove me wrong about that. Ad hominem tu quoque arguments won't really do the job.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That is because I'm bearding the lion in its metaphorical den, so to speak. The sift is liberally slanted. I'm not. So even when dare to challenge the consensus groupthink - even when done respectfully - I get blowback. I would say that I am incredibly patient, respectful, and moderate in my tone. I rarely (if ever) make things personal. Even when I'm on the receiving end of some rather nasty abuse I tend to keep it civil.

I think then there may be room for me to maybe help understand the kinds of reactions you get.

Part of the issue is a lot of your comments are of the formation "What liberals are saying is utterly, demonstrably, and obviously false, and in fact, they're more guilty of it than the right". You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

Part of the issue with making an argument purely on challenging facts is that you run headlong into questions about the legitimacy of the source, and those can be some of the ugliest arguments of all, especially if the only source cited is yourself.

I'd recommend trying to make philosophical or moral arguments that don't hinge on the specific circumstances, especially when we're talking about events we only know about from news stories. I find it helps move conversations from heat to light when you shift the discussion to the underlying philosophical disagreement like that.

I also think you'll get farther with making a positive statement about what you believe, than a negative statement about what you believe liberals believe. (i.e. instead of "Liberals just want to boss people around with their nanny state", try "Conservatives are trying to give people more freedom to choose how to run their own lives")

People will likely still disagree with you, but at least there's a chance they'll respond to what you said, rather than just hurl invectives at you.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I don't apologize for being a rare conservative voice in a chorus of liberals, but that doesn't mean that "I" am responsible for 'increased vitriol'. The vitriol comes when people other than myself. I simply present a different point of view.

I don't think you should apologize. However, I also think you have to be willing to accept some responsibility for how people react to what you say. I'm self-aware enough to know that what I say is going to sound inflammatory to some people, and I certainly don't feel like criticism of my own inflammatory speech is somehow an assault on my free speech.

If you're getting a lot of vitriol (and I know you are), and that's not what you want, I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance.

This place has a bunch of really thoughtful people who enjoy civil discussion with people who they disagree with. If that's what you want, I gotta say I think you're just pushing the wrong buttons.

Saw it Friday night... would have walked out and demanded my money back but was with other people- one of whom actually enjoyed it.

Retard.

Ya, bunch of BS. My Niece made Cheerleader this year in Highschool after the first preseason Friday night game they went to eat at Ihop. Cops came in and ticketed the whole squad. That was the first I had heard of the curfew here. Guess kids don't have any rights anymore.

@AnimalsForCrackers

First off, I’d like to thank you for your lengthy replies to my posts. I’m sure you, like me, are a busy person and have plenty of other things you could be doing.

Second, thanks again for the link. Read it and also clicked through some of the forums. It does indeed help me understand where you’re coming from. I can say that I disagree completely with the “Gnu Atheists” strategy (more on that later), but at least now I know what their strategy is and why they believe it is necessary.

Third, I’d like to give you a VideoSift user tip (just in case you’re unaware of it). On VideoSift, if you don’t use the quote function when replying to someone, the person you’re responding to won’t receive any notification that you’ve responded. If you’d rather directly quote by copying and pasting text for yourself (as you’ve been doing), you need to use @username (as I’ve done for your name in this post) in order for the person to get a notification you’ve responded. I bring this up because since you’ve neither been using the quote function nor using the @username tag, I haven’t been receiving any notification of your messages. I only found out about your response accidentally after I came back to check something after viewing this other Hitchens video. Just wanted to give you a heads-up about this because if someone doesn’t reply to a discussion you’ve been having, I wouldn’t want to you to assume, say, that the person was ignoring you.

Speaking of assumptions, I’m noticing that you tend to make a lot of them. You assumed, for instance, that I was a Christian. You assumed that I was trying to defend a particular religion or religious practice. You assumed (and continue to assume) that I am calling Hitchens and the rest fundamentalists. I am not. I could not. Atheism by its very definition cannot be “fundamentalist” as this article explains. What I said was:

I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against.

And I see now where the breakdown in communication between us occurred. I certainly could have been clearer here. You assumed I meant they were fundamentalists. What I meant was exactly what I said—exactly what the author of the blog that talked about Malcom X said: that they refuse to revise their absolutist statements about religion being the cause of evil or the spreading hatred even when faced with evidence of religion instead bringing good into the world (on the blog—the story of Hitchens and the taxi driver who went to great lengths to return Hitchens’ lost wallet because the driver’s religion demanded he do so).

This evidence exists in heaps and bounds—I would guess (though I don’t know for sure, granted) in equal amounts to the evidence that religion spreads hatred. Regardless of the amount, in the face of the fact that such evidence exists at all, Hitchens’ previous statement (the one made in this clip about religion being the primary cause of hatred) becomes wholly untenable. The best he can say is that religion might cause hatred in some people. And even then, the burden of proof is on him and the rest of the Gnu Atheists to show that it is religion itself and not, say, humans subverting religion for their own purposes as they do every other human constructed system. For instance, just because some people use communism to establish totalitarian regimes, doesn’t make communism evil. Likewise, people abusing capitalism and producing massive rich-poor gaps doesn’t make capitalism the source of evil. Religion is no different—it can be used for great good or great evil. These are systems—by themselves neither good, nor evil, but capable of both depending on how they are used and/or abused.

So, what I was trying to say in my original post is that it annoys me that Hitchens and the rest continue onward with their blanket absolutist statements despite the fact that there exists evidence to the contrary. That is similar to fundamentalists who say, for instance, that the world is only 6000 years old and ignore any scientific evidence to the contrary. I find it ironic to be able to see any similarity between two such diametrically opposed opponents. And, to me, it weakens the Gnu Atheists argument since they are so interested in “the truth”.

That pretty much summarizes my original opinion. I hope that is clear enough for you.

Now that that is out of the way, let me continue to address some of your other assumptions.
(I hope you pardon the length of this reply. I’ve read every word of yours and I hope you will do me the same courtesy.) You assumed that I didn’t know what ad hominem meant. Thanks for the link, but I’m actually not sure you know what it means so I’m actually going to post the definition here for both of us (from Wikipedia):

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

I feel this applies to your post because you appear to be dismissing my argument before even considering it since you start off suspecting I don’t think clearly. That, of course, would be a logical fallacy according to this definition. However, having browsed the website you sent me I understand why you use this tactic, as it is rampant on their forums--ironically proving the truth of your statement (when applied as a generality) that being an atheist does not necessarily mean being able to think clearly about all things.

This brings us back to the Gnu Atheist’s confrontational tactics—in that link you gave me, the writer explicitly endorses being rude. I’m not here to tell you it isn’t a valid tactic—it most certainly is. I’m here to question it’s efficacy.

Think of it this way: when you want to learn something there are many ways you can go about getting the knowledge you seek. You can ask someone who’s an expert on the topic. You can search the Internet. Or, you can put a book on your head and hope the information seeps into your head through some kind of information osmosis. Some of these techniques will clearly be more effective than others.

I think we can safely say that, when you are trying to convince someone of your opinion, some tactics work better than others. So, my question for you is, is being rude and disrespectful to people an effective arguing technique? Let’s be clear, I am not saying we need to respect other people’s ideas. As this article explains, we can make a distinction between respecting ideas and respecting people.

The fact of the matter is, in Western society we have standards of conduct. Civility is one of those standards. The failure to obey those standards results in the offender being ostracized. What that means is, when you disrespect people they are unlikely to listen to what you have to say. You can gnash your teeth and complain about this all you like, but it is “the truth.” And for someone who, as a Gnu Atheist, claims to be interested in the truth it seems irrational to ignore it and go about being rude to others if you really have any hope of convincing people of your position and aren't just talking for the sake of talking.

To tie all this together, let’s talk about one last assumption you made. You assumed I didn’t want to reply to your questions because I was trying to dodge the issue. I’d like us to be clear on my true reasons for not replying (so you won’t have to assume anymore).

I (like you, I imagine) happen to be a very busy person. I work full-time and put in a lot of unpaid overtime. I also have a beautiful family and good friends that I want to spend my free time with. This limits the amount of time I can spend on the Internet. So I have to choose when and how to respond to posts wisely.

You, from the very start of your post, set out to pick a fight. You made completely unfounded assumptions and then attacked an imaginary opponent that you mistook for me. In your attack, instead of remaining logical and rational, you resorted to personal attacks to try to make your points.

As I said, I have a limited amount of time. Why should I use that time to even bother with someone who doesn’t seem to understand the social convention of civility? Why should I spend it defending or searching the Internet for proof for an argument I never actually made (the “reality/validity” of Christianity; the fundamentalism of atheists like Hitchens)? Why should I try to reason with someone who from the very outset displays such misguided behavior?

The answer is, of course, I shouldn’t. But I did anyway. I’ve spent several hours on a Friday night composing this message with the sole hope that maybe you’d be willing to try to see things from my point of view rather than just attack line by line everything I say (because that’s not a discussion—it’s a monologue). I firmly believe it is dialogues—and not diatribes—that are going to solve the problems we currently face between secular and religious thinking. I respect your right to disagree, though, too. Like I said, I come to VideoSift to watch videos and occasionally comment on them—not convince the world I am right.

Thanks for reading this to the end. As a footnote, here is a link to a discussion on that web site you gave me that I found very interesting. Most of all, I found JoiletJake’s comments interesting—see posts #139 and #146 in particular, as I believe they are similar to my views on religion.

Thank you Kevlar, very much. And sir, no apologies warranted even if you were a month late though you were not. It happened just before midnight Friday night.

Thank you again. Come by anytime, it is always a pleasure.

In reply to this comment by Kevlar:
Consilverlations! (I have no idea when you got this, so apologies if I'm like a month late)

>> ^syncron:

Here's yet another variety of insect that our world can do without.


Speaking of which... where's Kirk Cameron to tell me that God invents all life with our benefit in mind?

Then again, maybe God wanted us to all get together on a Friday night, get drunk, and yell "OOOOOHH! DUUUDE!" as we pull botfly larvae out of each other's backs. I take it back... clearly this is part of God's plan!