Yahtzee falls into the same trap a lot of people seem to be falling into, being completely ignorant of how people act when society crumbles. He judges everyone and everything in this game for how they act, like murdering desperate fuckholes, when everythings gone to hell. Why not do some research, read about what happens during a genocide or a warzone. Maybe he thinks that like people are taught in school that WW2 bombed out London was the citizens finest hour where they all pulled together, when in actuality it was swarming with criminals and yes murder.

I can understand the judgments of this game being predictable, it really is but that didn't bother me. What bothers me is people not thinking about what they would be prepared to do if the chips were down. When you're being attacked from all sides you put the biggest bastard psychopath in charge if he can get you out of it. If it's just you, YOU become that psychopath bastard. It's why Joel was still alive in that world for 20 years, how do people think you survive in such a world?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tea, coffee, health, ritual' to 'tea, coffee, health, ritual, joel mchale' - edited by lucky760

Of course, you are right that there are other components to health, however, I think the majority of our health is accomplished by what we do to our insides with a minority of the benefit coming through exercise.

I find it compelling that the heart patients too sick for bypass surgery are sent to Joel Fuhrman for fasting followed by a plant-based diet in order to get them safely back to health. In your own back yard, Joe Cross came out with "Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead." and was healed to health through a plant-based diet. The evidence for health through proper nutrition is now overwhelming. From Dr. John McDougal's, "The McDougal Plan," through Dr. Neil Barnard's, "Reversing Diabetes," we are seeing that the western diet is the main reason for the burden on our healthcare system.

My own story is this: Several years ago my blood pressure was 210/120. I was on 4 medications and had edema in my legs and was, at 54 years old, feeling that I was on my way out. The doctors were so concerned that they continued to recommend additional drugs and tests to see what was going on. At that point I went to an old friend named Richard. He is a nutritionist and he and his 10 children have NEVER been to a doctor. (He claims it is because he didn't poison his family with sugar and white flour among other processed foods). Through natural foods and supplements, he healed me. Last year I completed two rounds of P90X. That was the benefit of the internal healing. I was able to do that.

All that being said, a plant-based diet doesn't necessarily mean no meat. But if people choose to do a no meat diet, I suggest strongly that they plan on figuring out their protein requirements and making sure that they can eat a broad enough range of fruits, vegetables and legumes in order that they don't run a protein deficit. That is different, in my way of thinking, from a protein deficiency. It is possible to get all of some of the amino acids needed and lack some of the others. Trust me, that results in some weird side effects.

I believe the huge problem with discussing this issue with people is that it seems everyone has something to protect. So I normally don't talk about it unless someone comes to me who wants to get well. Even then, I am just a resource and offer no medical advice personally. I do, however, have a story to share with regards to improper nutrition.

I will add this beautiful tidbit : Linus Pauling's protocol for reversing heart disease is, in my mind, a remarkable piece of work. One doctor, when asked what he thought about it, said that he wasn't too sure it would work, but then again he hadn't won two Nobel Prizes either.

If I didn't know better, it almost looks like the world is dreadfully underpopulated...

Or rather, the world is overpopulated by SimCity raised "master global planners" and underpopulated by sovereign farming families.

Check out Joel Salatin. He's been doing this stuff for generations. He cycles livestock grazing in much the same way. But not just cattle, he brings in chickens, rabbits, etc on the same land different days of the week.

World of Warcraft Lib Dub: We Didn't Start the Fire has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

We Didn't Start The Fire-Billy Joel has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/World-of-Warcraft-Lib-Dub-We-Didn-t-Start-the-Fire

*related=http://videosift.com/video/We-Didnt-Start-The-Fire-Billy-Joel

World of Warcraft Lib Dub: We Didn't Start the Fire has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

We Didn't Start The Fire-Billy Joel has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/World-of-Warcraft-Lib-Dub-We-Didn-t-Start-the-Fire

*related=http://videosift.com/video/We-Didnt-Start-The-Fire-Billy-Joel

On Oct. 1, 1997, Luke Woodham, 16, part of a satanic cult, stabbed and bludgeoned his mother before driving her car to Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., where he shot dead two students and wounded seven others with a rifle he made no attempt to conceal. He then got back into his mother’s car and planned to go to Pearl Junior High School to kill some more. But assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45-caliber pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham.

On Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, 43, of Nigeria, went to the Appalachian School of Law campus in Virginia with a handgun and killed three and wounded three others. At the sound of gunfire, two other students – both police officers – retrieved guns from their cars. Meanwhile, another police officer and former Marine jumped Odighizuwa and disarmed him by the time the other officers got to the scene.

On Aug. 23, 1995, a band of crack cocaine addicts entered a store in Muskegon, Mich., with a plan to kill everyone and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their habit. One member of the gang shot store owner Clare Cooper in the back four times. He still managed to grab his shotgun and fire on the gang as they fled. They were all apprehended.

On Dec. 9, 2007, a 24-year-old gunman named Matthew Murray launched an attack on the congregants of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs that left two victims dead. A former police officer, Jeanne Assam, a member of the security team for the church, shot Murray 10 times, killing him, as he was shooting at her. Murray had killed four others at a church 70 miles away earlier in the day.

On July 24, 2012, Richard Gable Stevens rented a rifle at a shooting range in Santa Clara, Calif., and herded three employees out the door, saying he intended to kill them. One of the employees, however, was carrying a .45-caliber handgun and shot the assailant.

On Dec. 17, 1991, two men armed with stolen pistols herded 20 customers and employees of a Shoney’s restaurant in Anniston, Ala., into a walk-in refrigerator and locked it so they could rob the establishment. However, one customer was armed with a .45-caliber handgun hidden under a table. He shot one of the gunmen dead. The other robber, who was holding the manager of the restaurant at gunpoint, began firing at the customer. But he was wounded critically by return fire, ending the incident.

On July 13, 2009, an armed man entered the Golden Food Market in south Richmond, shooting and wounding a clerk while firing at store patrons. He was shot by another customer who had a concealed-carry permit, likely saving the lives of eight other people in the store.

On July 29, 2012, Charles Conner shot and killed two people and their dogs at the Peach Tree RV park in Early, Texas. Vic Stacy got a call from one of the neighbors, got his .357 magnum and shot Conner as he fired upon the first police officer to arrive at the scene. Stacy was credited with saving the life of the officer.

The truth is that every single day mass murders are averted by armed civilian

Yet, every time there is a horrendous slaughter like we saw at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, there is a knee-jerk outcry for stricter control of guns.

taken from http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/how-to-stop-the-slaughter-of-the-innocents/#oA9kiFClUvLJ8gIK.99

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^Sepacore:
..and that people, is how you ruin a song.

Which one?


For Whom the bell tolls. Metallica did it well.

>> ^Sepacore:

..and that people, is how you ruin a song.

Which one?

Just to be clear... this particular video was indeed filmed in the '80s, but the song - including the recording used in this video - is from the early '70s. 1973 to be exact. People often forget just how long he's been in the biz. (This video was released in 1985 when they were promoting his mid-'80s greatest hits collection.)

There was actually a near identical video shot in '73 for the song, with the same recording used. It's here (and is cooler, methinks! - check out Joel's shaggy hairstyle):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVKtL9VU8rQ

Don't try and pawn this off on me. It's not my "excuse". I'm closed only to one idea: of my being absolutely certain about anything. I'm not closed to any other idea, period. You have failed to convince me. That's why I don't accept your story. And after all this, you revealed yourself to be absolutely certain of your own judgement that your numinous experiences are coming from God.

Let me get this straight..you're completely closed to the idea of being absolutely certain of something. Think about that for a minute and see if you can spot the inherent contradiction contained within this idea.

If I say there is absolute truth, and someone says no there isn't, and I say are you absolutely sure about that?, this isn't a trivial question. That's what I used to think, that it was some kind of cheap trick, and ultimately meaningless. Don't be like I was and just dismiss this without giving it a great deal of thought. The fact is, you can't deny the idea of absolute truth without confirming it. It's not a cheap parlor cheap of logic, it is a revelation of the framework of reality, of how things really work. That there really is a certain truth, and everything you ultimately believe, flawed logic and all, ultimately points to it. It actually could be no other way. There is a ground for everything we know and understand. The atheist says though that's he is standing on air. The issue is that subjective beings can't know anything about objective reality so they grope around in the dark trying to understand what truth is. An atheism has no route to get beyond his subjective understanding. The only way you can understand truth then is by the light of revelation. IE, someone without objective understanding (an omniscient being) would have to enlighten you. If you've never seen light then you won't understand what darkness is. Jesus said if the light in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

What I believe is that you were not systematic in trying to understand your experience. When you woke up from it and figured out that you were being led down a path to insanity, you just wrote the whole thing off as being entirely in your mind. I would liken this to coming home one day and finding a group of thieves moving furniture out of your house and loading it into a truck. You ask them what they're doing and they say that they are a moving company and that you called them and set up an appointment 2 weeks ago to move you out, and don't you remember? Oh wow, you say, it must have skipped my mind! It looks like it was just a rash idea of mine, really sorry for this inconvenience! You then proceed to help them move your furniture back into your house.

As you're moving everything back in, you notice the door has been busted open and the house has been ransacked. You ask them about this and they say that just earlier you were here trying to let them into house but you couldn't find your key so you kicked the door in because you didn't want to keep them waiting. You then tore the house apart looking for your keys, and when you found them you left to go get something to eat and that's where you've been this whole time. Pondering this you decide that if you could forget about calling them in the first place then you could most certainly forget about doing all of those other things too.

So you finally get everything back in the house and you again apologize profusely for wasting their time, but as they are leaving, they say don't worry about it because we were never here. We're just part of a dream you're having. Goodbye! You think to yourself, considering the memory problems I've been having, this seems very reasonable. The next day a friend stops by and asks you what happened to your house. Oh, it was all a bad dream, you say. I apparently did all of this in my sleep, but it's over now, not to worry!

I don't know what your experience was; typically, they try to convince you that you're some kind of Messiah-like figure, or that reality is centered around you in some way. What I do know is that things happened to you which you cannot explain; signs and wonders, strange "coincidences", etc. These were the signposts in your journey that reinforced your paradigm and kept you on that road. You want to believe that it was all in your head rather than a strategic plan to destroy you, so you chalk it up to delusion. It wasn't all delusion, though; you were being herded down a path, probably with the goal of getting you to kill yourself, and it's only because they went too far that you woke up from that spell.

You have failed to convince me. That's why I don't accept your story.

I can't convince you of anything. This isn't an intellectual problem that you're having, it is an issue of your heart. Only God can convince you, but your heart is hardened towards Him and you refuse to come near to Him.

And after all this, you revealed yourself to be absolutely certain of your own judgement that your numinous experiences are coming from God.

That's just what I've been saying all along, that there is a certain truth, and God reveals it to those who seek Him. That truth is Jesus Christ. You've admitted that God could convince me, so it isn't an inherently irrational position.

All you're telling me is that you are convinced of something, and FWIW, I believe that you are. You have no grounds to believe that your human perceived conviction is warranted, especially given that you know of many other humans who are equally convicted about things that contradict what you believe. That alone should give you doubt about your convictions, as it gives me doubt. If it doesn't give you doubt, you're not being rational. What's more likely: that you alone are correct among all the millions of equally convicted people, or that all equally convicted people, including you, are wrong? What makes you so special?

Nothing makes me special; I simply responded to Gods calling. I can explain why people follow false religion in imitation of the true God, which is that Satan blinds the eyes of unbelievers so that they cannot know the truth about God. He backs up their experiences with supernatural signs and wonders so that they believe they are on the right path. Satan is an imitator of God:

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

I DO doubt my own existence -- at least, I don't take it as fact that I exist. I could be a brain in a vat, etc. I don't accept my own senses either as categorical evidence. I live as if they're accurate because it's instinctive and it serves me to do so. Skepticism is not ignorance. Accepting something absolutely and uncritically is ignorance. You expect me to accept your word on faith. Why should I believe you? You're just some random person on their internet soapbox who claims to have visions of god. See how stupid it would be for me to change my life because of that? You wouldn't.

I don't think you're actually that skeptical, because I haven't really seen you critically examine your own presuppositions. You say that you don't have any preference for the truth, but that is clearly not true. You are very slanted in favor of a liberal/humanistic/naturalistic mindset, and you oppose any ideas which contradict it. You clearly do accept some things, like evolution for instance, as the gospel truth. This is very inconsistent with your statements about uncertainty. You've seen the human capacity to delude itself, so you keep saying, but you don't seem to question the thought process that leads you to any of these conclusions.

The reason I came to be a Christian, and no one ever witnessed to me by the way, is because I wanted to know the truth and God showed me what it is. I had sufficient evidence from God to give my life to Jesus, and then Jesus completely transformed me and made me a new person. I didn't expect any of that to happen. I had no idea what it would mean to become a Christian. But it did happen, supernaturally, and I found out later that it matched up to everything the bible said would happen. It's one thing to use confirmation bias to make a bunch of coincidence and happenstance into some kind of experience of God. It's another to be transformed at the core of your being into an entirely new person, losing all the negatives and gaining an unlimited supply of peace, joy, hope and love. Even more so when it happens within a moment in time. I've seen miracles, and I've seen things like demon possession. I am certain because God made me certain, but there is plenty of evidence to justify my certainty.

You are certain about God's revelation to you because God has given you certainty of it. That's tautology, if you're a rational agent.

Actually, it's circular reasoning. You will find that every inductive argument suffers from this problem. You cannot actually ultimately justify a single one of your beliefs to me. The conversation could go like this:

You: (objection to a stated fact or belief)
Me: Is that a rational statement?
You: Yes, it is logical.
Me: How do you know it is logical?
You: Because I reason it to be so.
Me: How do you know your reasoning is valid?
You: Because I reason it to be so.

Repeat ad infinitum. You've admitted that you can't trust your senses, and you just assume that you're rational because it's instinctive, which provides you no ultimate justification for anything you believe. That you're telling me it's wrong to use circular reason is absurd since everything you believe is based on it.

Circular reasoning is not necessarily fallacious because you cannot point to an ultimate authority for any claim without using it. Look at the issues this problem of induction causes when it comes to proving scientific theory:

"Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that “using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning”. Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically. An appeal to a principle of the uniformity of nature would be required to deductively necessitate the continued accuracy of predictions based on laws that have only succeeded in generalizing past observations. But as Bertrand Russell observed, “The method of ‘postulating’ what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil”

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

You cannot use empirical evidence to prove empiricism is valid, just as you can't use the scientific method to prove the scientific method is valid. Therefore science cannot be proven scientifically! It needs an ultimate justification which cannot be proven inductively. Therefore, you would have to use a deductive argument by presupposing the uniformity of nature to justify the continued accuracy of the predictions of science. But again, just assuming the uniformity in nature leads you to the same problem. The only evidence you have that the future will be like the past is in the past. Therefore it would be fallacious reasoning to say the future will be like the past because of the past.

This is where the problem comes in for the atheist, because he must use viciously circular reasoning, which is always fallacious. I can point to God to justify logic, truth, the uniformity in nature, and my own rationality. These concepts don't make any sense in an atheistic worldview, because there is no way to justify them. My reasoning isn't viciously circular..I can point to an ultimate authority. Your reason is viciously circular because you must point to yourself as the authority.

You want God to be real so you deny all evidence even to other *possibilities*, let alone facts.

I didn't originally go looking for God. He tapped me on the shoulder. I didn't become a Christian because I wanted God to be real, I became a Christian because the evidence indicated He is real.

I don't want anything in particular to be real. I only want to be as sure as possible of what I do believe.

I don't think you want the Christian God to be real, and would prefer that He wasn't. What you can be sure of is that you cannot ultimately justify any of your beliefs.

Yes, of course a god could convince you, but just because you're convinced, doesn't mean it was God who did it. That would be a faulty syllogism. Minds can play the most amazing tricks on people. That's documented fact.

How is it that when you have evidence that confirms your belief, it's faulty, but when you reject that evidence, it's rational? Just because you can potentially falsify an idea doesn't mean it has been falsified. I have a path to the truth, as you've admitted. God could make me certain, and He could reveal truth, so it isn't irrational to believe it, considering the overwhelming evidence that I have received, and continue to receive, each and every day. When God touches your life, you have a justified true belief in Him. In every case, when God makes someone certain, they are going to justified in saying that they're certain. You would say all these people are delusional, but you have no way to be able to tell the difference. Only the individual could really know that they've been touched by God. The only way you could find out is if you were yourself touched by God. That's what I've been trying to tell you all along. I can't convince you, but God can. He loves you and He is waiting for you to soften your heart and seek His face. That is the only thing which will prove or disprove my claim.


>> ^messenger:

stuff

I love you, dft.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Ideas for more Die Hard sequels.

Live and Let Die Hard - John McClane is hired by the MI1 to stop an eccentric evil genius from destroying the world.

Live Each Day As If You Will Die Hard Tomorrow - After being diagnosed with cancer, John McClane travels the country, checking off items on his bucket list in this heartwarming tale of self discovery.

Only the Good Die Hard Young - After Billy Joel's bass player sprains his wrist, John McClane is hired on as an unlikely side man.

Live by the Sword, Die Hard by the Sword - Sir Johnus McClanus takes down a brutal feudal lord in this medieval prequel.

I Do or Die Hard - John McClane races against the clock to make it to the alter after his bachelor party gets out of hand in this riotous comedy.

To Die Hard For - John McClane helps Nicole Kidman to murder Tom Cruise.

Curl Up and Die Hard - Hilarity ensues as John McClane is enlisted to coach the Jamaican Olympic Curling Team in this vaguely racist Disney comedy.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Ideas for more Die Hard sequels.
Live and Let Die Hard - John McClane is hired by the MI1 to stop an eccentric evil genius from destroying the world.
Live Each Day As If You Will Die Hard Tomorrow - After being diagnosed with cancer, John McClane travels the country, checking off items on his bucket list in this heartwarming tale of self discovery.
Only the Good Die Hard Young - After Billy Joel's bass player sprains his wrist, John McClane is hired on as an unlikely side man.
Live by the Sword, Die Hard by the Sword - Sir Johnus McClanus takes down a brutal feudal lord in this medieval prequel.
I Do or Die Hard - John McClane races against the clock to make it to the alter after his bachelor party gets out of hand in this riotous comedy.
To Die Hard For - John McClane helps Nicole Kidman to murder Tom Cruise.
Curl up and Die Hard - Hilarity ensues as John McClane is enlisted to coach the Jamaican Olympic curling team in this vaguely racist Disney comedy.


*wipes away tears of laughter*