The only fundamentalist I know IRL was homeschooled.

There are two reasons atheists and agnostics are more common online than IRL: free access to information from all kinds of people, and freedom to be honest without fear of retribution. IRL, fear keeps people in line.

I think the decision then was 2week ban first offense. permanent ban for 2nd.

as MG linked to Dag:

>> ^dag:
Beyond QM I think this is also a referendum on voting and the community. I see this vindictive behavior as a kind of vote fraud.
I don't want it to become commonplace, as it will lead to acrimony and possibly the complete degradation of the site from a great community to a perpetual shit-flinging festival.
So I take this very seriously as an important decision-point for VideoSift.
On the other hand, as much as I disagree with QM in almost all his comments, I recognise that it's important to protect dissenting voices and alternative views. I don't support an outright ban.
In this case, (and any future cases) I recommend a 2-week suspension, with complete banning for a second offense.
We should apply the same penalty to Mkone's inane copycat downvoting spreee. (if you're going to be a jerk - at least be an original one).
Also, I don't agree with "retribution" tit-for-tat down voting sprees.
What say ye all?

I come from an upper-middle-class liberal suburban place pronounced Missour-EE within a red state called Missour-UH in the United States of Jesus. My high school had a very high percentage of children of professors at Washington University, and if you added up all the jews, blacks, asians, and mixed people, that was probably over 50%. My mother hails from UCC, which is probably the second most welcoming and nondogmatic of sect of Christianity behind Unitarian Universalism (Barack Obama is in UCC). My father was a woowoo evangelical. Some of my recollections on the subject of religion during childhood are:

1. In third grade, some kid started going around asking everybody, with a dichotomous intonation, "Are you Catholic, or Christian"? I suspect he was an evangelical. I don't recall giving any reply, but even at the time I had doubts due to the lack of any fulfillment of prayer. I had grown to distrust all adults and authority figures as a reasonable extension of my discovery, as a five or six year old, of Santa Claus, the first thanksgiving, Pocahontas, and many other lies. I had also grown to suspect something was terribly rotten in our society due to the cruelty of many homophobic bullies who called me names that weren't even true and the teachers who didn't care. Because of my alienation, I was not inclined to presuppose that the majority opinion was more likely to be correct.

2. Around this time, my (divorced remarried noncustodial) father also took me to see a faith-healer. I don't recall what he was trying to cure me of. He attended some crackpot semirural megachurch, and his business was "no money down" real-estate, another religion.

3. Within two years afterward my father was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for schizophrenia because he believed he could communicate directly with the spirits of Joan of Arc, Jesus, and other saints, and they told him to fight demons by committing arson. He later said the charges were trumped-up and unsuccessfully tried to get out with a religious freedom argument.

4. Teachers from sixth through twelfth grade stressed the importance of critical thinking and incorporated it into the curriculum.

5. In seventh grade, I recall being asked of my religious affiliation, and replying that I was sitting on the fence between agnosticism and atheism. There was no retribution or suprise or stigma. I was already an outcast and had nothing socially to lose, anyway. About a year prior I first acquired persistent unsupervised access to the internet, which I have had ever since. In the following two years I did quite a lot of research online and debating in online bulletin boards. This drew me closer to atheism by gaining a greater understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. In other words, a greater understanding of how the world came to be the way it is. However, I would still call myself a teapot-agnostic.

6. In high school, I found a clique of atheists and agnostics. Shortly after 9/11, when the Missouri legislature enacted a bill that compelled schools to recite the pledge of allegiance at least once a week, some of my classmates and I openly expressed our disapproval on the grounds of separation of church and state. No gasps were heard. This was long before the Newdow case. When the Bible As/In Literature was taught in English class, several of my classmates and I expressed our disapproval again on the same grounds. In classroom discussions on that book, I recall many viewpoints being expressed with no great gasps of shock. I, the nerd, said openly that I thought the bible was a collection of fairy tales, poems, and forgeries, while the big football jock next to me expressed a predilection for biblical literalism in not so many words. I recall a very hot semi-orthodox Jewish girl who told me she would only date Jews.

I agreed with, or even said openly online, much of what is contained in the God Delusion, before the book was published. I suspect some others have had similar experiences. Not every consensus is a flock.


The ID movement, and the fact that every single suicide hijacker/bomber is faith-based, and the loosening of taboos by (e.g.) the Daily Show, have probably been three of the most important factors that led to the books of Dawkins and Hitchens. In Dawkins' case, the ID movement alone may have been the most important factor because of his biological profession. Hitchens tends to write books extremely quickly (averaging a book a year for the past 24 years), and it's very plausible that he began writing his after, and because of, the success of The God Delusion.

Most nonatheist people's comments on the Sift about Dawkins accuse him of being too shrill. Accusing one's opponent of too much enthusiasm (stridency, shrillness) is irrelevant to the subject matter of the debate. I personally find nothing unpleasant about Dawkins' manner of speech except his affinity for hooptedoodle. His grotesque description of the god of the old testament is spot-on. A book only appears strident in relation to one's perception of orthodoxy, and neither the orthodoxy nor one's perception of orthodoxy are necessarily correct. Rather, debate the substance of the issue. Neither Dawkins nor any of his followers is advocating curtailing the religious freedom of believers, so his opponents have nothing to fear but the holes in their theories.

Heaven forbid any of these things happened to anyone X had personal relation to....there would be dead people and bodies buried, never to be found-
X would start with the first lawyer that contacted X-Stop there? Fuck no-that Hotel of Horror would sustain some major damage....X would see to it, other similar assets that had anything to do with audits or training, met with a similar fate-X would only stop, when X's lust for retribution, began to interfere with X's freedom to do whatsoever X wilt....

Scientology better hope they never fuck with X...lawyers and mind-fucks are invitations to parties for X.....May even end the whole game with a personal visit to Mr. Risky Business itself.....

Now THAT"S deprogramming!

"In this case, (and any future cases) I recommend a 2-week suspension, with complete banning for a second offense.

We should apply the same penalty to Mkone's inane copycat downvoting spreee. (if you're going to be a jerk - at least be an original one).

Also, I don't agree with "retribution" tit-for-tat down voting sprees."''

I agree 250% with Dag, that's better then that measly 110% that everyone else talks about. The last thing anyone who cares about this site wants is a torn troll infested yousift.

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

Beyond QM I think this is also a referendum on voting and the community. I see this vindictive behavior as a kind of vote fraud.

I don't want it to become commonplace, as it will lead to acrimony and possibly the complete degradation of the site from a great community to a perpetual shit-flinging festival.

So I take this very seriously as an important decision-point for VideoSift.

On the other hand, as much as I disagree with QM in almost all his comments, I recognise that it's important to protect dissenting voices and alternative views. I don't support an outright ban.

In this case, (and any future cases) I recommend a 2-week suspension, with complete banning for a second offense.

We should apply the same penalty to Mkone's inane copycat downvoting spreee. (if you're going to be a jerk - at least be an original one).

Also, I don't agree with "retribution" tit-for-tat down voting sprees.

What say ye all?

Coming to Mycroft's defense here. He went realist on us. I was in the middle of a theoretical debate and he said, Hey, this is your reality. Kind of threw me there cause I didn't get it. You can't argue reality. It is what it is.

Back to theory; Eric's example clearly points out what many fear about hate crime laws, the overly broad interpretation of offense.

What should also be acknowledged is that hate-crime legislation does have something to do with "deterring retribution." The explicit goal is to send the message that prejudiced intimidation or violence is unacceptable, something all ethical people know. An implicit goal is to lessen the risk of violent retribution, i.e. rioting or equivalent, and thus preserve social order. It's practical, and at the same time stereotyping, i.e. you anticipate possible reactive criminal behavior on the part of the offended social group. The implicit can be viewed as appeasement, (from the dictionary: appeasement; to yield or concede to the demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.)

I won't deny that a study of history would suggest appeasement, in the practical sense, is beneficial for social order in a mixed society.

Well, Raven, your comment is what brought me to this video. Based on the title I was expecting something completely different. Im not sure where to start.
Radical Christian Missionaries - well, i thought Westboro baptist church was branching out. Seems to me they are just doing what Christians have been doing for thousands of year. When the video started, it appeared to be a newsroom, and the anchor was talking like Christians and the military were working hand in hand. And when it does state that they went with the military support, they offer no backup to their claims. Looks like some one is pissed at America and American Christians, ad this is the result.

As far as the General in church - That kinda pissed me off. We have very strict policy about using your position to further your personal beliefs, so to walk into a congregation as large as that one wearing your stars? Uncalled for.

But you are right about one thing Raven, these ministries aren't going to help the overall situation at all. This should be especially known to Christians. Right in our bible it tells us that the entire region is damned, so as far as them trying to make it better? Not so sure thats what they are trying to do. But like we have in all kinds of countries all over the world, they are setting up minisitries.

Raven, you said it never surprises you to see 'peaceful' and 'fun-loving' Christians stirring up religious violence. I don't see how trying to spread the beliefs of of their church (of Christianity) with care packages and colorful bibles is stirring up trouble. Now, as was pointed out in the video, a Muslim may find themselves into some trouble for converting, i.e. getting killed, so whose radical? seems to me like there a problem there. (I am NOT saying all Muslims are the same, hence the term radical) Well if these Muslims converting know its a possible retribution, thats on them. I don't see how the missionaries are causing the trouble.

For those new to our recent roast traditions:

If you join in the roast (comments, zingers, put-downs, insults, etc.), you understand the following:

• Your name goes into the roast pool for future roasts

• the roastee (in this case, karaidl) is allowed final say/retribution at the end of the proceedings


OK, I’m putting on my teacher's hat now. Apparently some folks would appreciate some extra help:

karaidl Survey Answers/Study Guide/Cheat Sheet is here:
http://parody.videosift.com/talk/The-Third-Roast-on-Friday#comment-279954

Recent moments in karaidlSpeak:
http://www.videosift.com/usercomments/karaidl


Now back to my own research, MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . .

THE JESTER

*scurries away*

Spectacular interview. Bill Moyer and Charlie Rose do the best interviews. Insightful questions and an actual interview where they listen to the guest.

As to the content of this interview, I just have trouble thinking of the future. IF we make to the next president (that is IF Bush leaves office), there is no possible way that Bush or his cabinet will get any retribution for what they have done to the country. So disappointing.

At least he's not an anti-gay evangelical that hangs out with male prostitutes in the White House and starts wars resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands based on completely false and illogical reasoning.

If you talk to imaginary people and voices in your head, you are considered schizophrenic. If you talk to angels or an imaginary friend named Jesus. Then you are 'blessed' indeed.

If you have a lofty goal to strive for world peace (whether achievable or not), neocons think you are a crackpot. If you have the goal for domineering the world through military power and 'kicking ass', expecting the world to roll over and comply without any retribution... who do you think is more sound of mind?

Gorgon, I do believe anyone who has an interest in the second amendment - right to bear arms - would disagree that the erasing of laws has much to do with personal security. If there's no law against murder, psycho would generally last about ONE murder - cuz retribution for many would be "personal" and that psycho wouldn't live long enough to enact another murder. Now, think about that in a societal aspect; laws against murder enable a stable and functional society because we aren't all running around getting revenge on each other we can commit ourselves to higher functions. The argument you put forth is one against non-utopian anarchy and it's a decent one but the actual evolution of the argument is that without restriction, humankind will eventually settle down and have a society built upon mutual fear/respect. That's actually the base argument that gun enthusiasts have: if everyone has guns and is allowed to carry and use them, criminals won't be so quick to use theirs. Mutual fear/respect is also the base of the argument for the Cold War and nuclear stand-off.
But your last statment is about obediance to law, not enactment of law or restrictions. "Obediance" is not the same thing as law.

and Gorgonheap, I'd really like to understand how you get from "laws prohibiting personal action" to "freedom" - seems to me that the former takes away from the latter.
-smibbo

I'll give an example. Lets take a dramatic example i.e. homicide. If there is no law against it some psycho could freely knock off whomever they wanted. That grants them a lot of personal freedom, at least one would think that. But then again what about the family of the victims? They would want retribution for the murders but would have no through the law, because there isn't any.

So their protection is taken way, security of doing what they want to do is restricted by a man who's willing to kill at a moments notice. If they take matters in their own hands and go after the killer then the killer has nothing to protect him. So everyone lives in fear and there is no insurance against violations of human rights.

Ask a felon. They have freedoms restricted. Why? Because they chose not to obey laws enacted to provide people with protection and safety. it's the safety that gives people freedom to do what they want. It works like this Obedience to laws = more freedom to act within those tolerances. Disobedience to laws = restriction of former liberties.

Thanks for the info, your upvote despite your apparent hatred of S & G, and the link, MINK (haha, rhymes). I was aware that it's some sort of folk tune that was passed on. I guess I should have said that Simon and Garfunkel wrote all the music for the movie EXCEPT for this tune, which was stolen legally from some dead minstrels from the middle ages, with no fear of legal retribution because the music is public domain. Ah well...

Ahh, to be tough on the internet. The one place where you can call people all the names you want with no fear of retribution. I sincerely doubt you are this brash in real life.

See, karaidl? Hilarious. Interweb N00bs make me laugh, but this is a two-fer. Double-dipping is so fun, it should be illegal. I bet he starts using all caps and stuff next with all sorts of exclamation marks. Now, THAT would be tough (and SCARY!).

HAND, and OOOOOOOOOOOOOO-RAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!11111oneoneone