>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I love it, when women have sex, they are whores. No one even mentioned the men using the site, sexist fucks

No when they have sex for Money they're whores. Also I think most of the criticism about this video is that they have to in this richest of all nations sell their bodies for an education. That's fucked up no matter how you slice it.

Not an education, but debts. She isn't fucking a teacher to get accepted, she is fucking for money, period. It would be akin to her getting into debt from buying a car that she needed to get to a job she wanted, and fucked on the side to pay for it. @NetRunner Strawman on freemarkets is pretty classy too. Because women shouldn't view sex as an empowering act, the should be shameful of any sexual experience outside of pure love. Because all of us here sell our bodies to the jobs that we love, unequivocally. Women fucking is a holy experience, give me a break. If a person could make a living off of fucking, eating, or shitting, more power to them...it is what your body would rather be doing.


Lemme try and make a more full statement, since my succinct snark clearly rubbed you the wrong way.

Mostly my point was that everything in this video is good news from the perspective of a free market fundamentalist. The scarce resource of quality education gets a price set by market forces -- a high price. It commands those prices because it's a valuable investment in human capital which investors (students) can expect to get a sizable return on over their lifetime. In order to acquire capital to make this investment in their own human capital, enterprising young women are leveraging their existing assets (namely, their "assets") through free and voluntary positive sum exchanges (i.e. prostitution). Now we have an even further advancement brought to us by the wonders of the free market -- some enterprising guy who helps facilitate these positive-sum voluntary exchanges by helping connect sellers (of pussy) and buyers (of pussy) for a modest fee. Another positive-sum voluntary exchange! Society as a whole has been made richer through all of this.

Now to people who aren't free market fundamentalists, this situation all seems wrong. Education shouldn't be something each individual has to pay for, it should be something society collectively decides is a good investment to make in its citizenry as a whole. We should pay for it by collecting taxes from everyone, but with most of the burden falling on those most able to pay (mostly rich old men, who might otherwise rather spend that money on prostitutes).

I don't know about other people, but I generally see working a job as being a form of slavery. I'm paid, but I wouldn't care about being paid if I didn't need to pay for things I need. Money and capitalism is just one arbitrary way to allocate resources, and there's no particular reason to blind ourselves to the reality that most of us would do something else with the time we're currently working if we didn't have to pay the bills for the things we need. We ultimately acquiesce to this arrangement because of coercion -- you can't get food from the Supermarket (or get land to grow your own food) without money, at least not unless you want to be arrested.

So my take on prostitution is that if you really do need to become a prostitute to get by, it's a form of rape. Technically it's consensual sex, but it's tainted consent.

If it were purely a recreational activity that you happen to make some money off of, I say no harm no foul. Hell, even if you decide you want that to be your primary source of income because you love the work, more power to you.

But if you wind up with a lot of young women weighing their dignity against the impact of college on their entire future, then I think we're asking them to make a sort of Sophie's choice that they shouldn't have to make. And worse, this guy is putting that Sophie's choice in front of as many young women as he can, in order to make a buck. It's disgusting.

And you can't deny that this is the shape of a society ruled by free market ideology. Everything for sale, nothing sacred, and nobody thinking about anything but personal material gain. It's not utopia, it's sick.

from teh youtube

There will be more children in the US this year with bankrupt parents than divorced parents. With around 120,000 people declared bankrupt each month, many of the squeezed middle-class see the American dream slipping away.

"Our national myth is changing", explains author and journalist Thomas Hartmann. Whereas hard work was once seen as the route to prosperity in the US, nowadays the best most people can hope for is a lottery win. Three generations of farmers in Vermont ring the changes of the past fifty years. Doug Lyford remembers that his parents never argued about money: "There were five of us and we all went to college. No farmer could afford that any more". Disenchanted with the mainstream politicians, who have not done enough to help them, many are turning to the traditionalist Tea Party. For others, such as bicycle shop manager Anthony Laskaris, hard times are only to be expected: "this is the effect of globalisation: our living standards go down a little, so that others' can rise".

allow me to snark: I guess Wall St. is just an innocent bystander then?

sighs..
/doublefacepalm
this is becoming....tiresome.
i came to the decision to stop being a snark towards shinyblurry because his tone had softened a bit and he appeared more willing to interact in a more human and engaging way.
since he stated he had been studying for years (specifically what he never states) i put forth a few questions.
i put a lot of thought in to those questions.
not to be an ass,or pull a gotcha nor even to be "right" but rather to hear his response.
the questions were really not that important but his answers would reveal much on how he viewed certain dilemmas facing todays evangelical christian.
and since he says he has studied for years i framed the questions with tidbits and items a first year seminarian would know and would have already dealt with.
i now suspect that when shinyblurry says he "has studied for years" he means personal study.
nothing wrong with that.
thats how i did it too for many years and then was blessed to meet one of the most amazing people who decided to mentor and teach me..dr paul.

@smooman
you totally missed the point of my post.
i was not attempting to prove the existence of these resurrection deities and by proxy disprove jesus.nor did i gank that from zeitgeist..so lets not get derailed.
the question was how does shinyblurry resolve this issue?
his answer was "satan did it".
now that answer from an evangelical perspective is expected but from an intellectual one it is weak.
i am NOT being an ass here,just pointing out what should be obvious.
"satan did it" is a cheap and lazy way out.

@shinyblurry
the questions i asked were conundrums.
you have to think your way through them...not dismiss out of hand.
you have focused on zoraorastrian.
posted links to pages.
may i just say up front that i am not interested in someones elses research nor their conclusions but rather very interested in yours.
my point bringing up zoraorastrian was to illuminate the fact that the bible has been influenced by MANY different and sometimes conflicting theologies,and written by many different authors.
thats why i mentioned gilgamesh.
does the fact that so many authored the bible take away from the its beauty?literature? wisdom?
not at all,but it does paint a picture that is far more human and i was curious how you resolved that issue being an evangelical.
you did answer.."satan"..(i really find that answer unsatisfactory btw)...but you did not say how you resolved that issue.unless "satan" is your true answer and in that case.ok..fair enough.

you never answered which school of theological thought you adhered to (you made me guess).
nor did you answer if you were a preterist.
which is just somebody who believes that messianic prophecy has already been fulfilled.(you wont find any these days.2000 yrs ago you would have though).
this question was in relation to how christianity has evolved over the centuries.
now my question concerning the nicean creed is actually a trick question because it has never been resolved.
325 a.d and the nicean creed was the third attempt and the council decided to stick with it but it never really resolves the trinity.because of this theological failure of the elder council millions over the years have perished and not a small reason chirtianity began to fracture in to smaller subsets...all gaining (and losing ) and gaining again prominence in the christian world.

the questions i asked would reveal if shinyblurry has limited his studies to the 66 books of the KJV or if he has expanded his studies.
again..not for a gotcha moment nor to belittle him, but rather so i would have an idea the parameters in our discussion.

i read the gospels far different than mainstream christianity.
i study origins.
i study the socio-economic and education of that period of time.
the cultural practices and institutions.
when you put all these factors together you gain a much more insightful and complete picture.
i guess i dont understand when someone ignores that very vital part of the equation.
hence my questions.
i wanted to know how shinyblurry dealt with these dilemmas or if he thought of them at all.

living in the bible belt i deal with evangelicals all the time.
in fact i spoke at a local baptist church a few weeks ago.
my sermon was "the mechanics of prayer".they were welcoming and responsive,conversely i have also been told by another group of evangelicals that i will burn in the pit of fire because my idea and understanding of scripture happened to be different from theirs.

i do not understand how some people conflate their religion as themselves.
as somehow they ARE their religion and if their religion comes under any criticism or scrutiny they react like it is THEY who are being personally attacked and lash out with violent intentions (disguised as righteousness).
religion is a system of doctrine and dogma with written scripture as a vehicle.
since scripture is the written word, it is tangible and therefore subject to scrutiny and/or criticism.
and thats how it SHOULD be.i do not know ONE theologian who would disagree with that statement but i have encountered hundreds who feel that ANY scrutiny of their holy text is tantamount to a personal attack upon them.

i was unsure if blurry was a troll or if he was even aware that he was coming across like one.
i am still not sure.
i was ok with making snarky remarks and match blurry tone for tone.until i realized i was behaving poorly and nothing positive would really come out of that form of interaction...maybe amusement for a time.
so i decided to take a different approach and all i got was more of the same.
sad..really.
what a wasted opportunity.
my expectations for this discussion have dwindled considerably.
religion is communal..
faith is personal.
i guess mine is so far removed from shinyblurry's that we are incapable of having a decent discussion with each other.

so there it is folks.as openly and as honestly as i am able.
with sincerity and humility i say this to you shinyblurry.
namaste.

And well I used to steady these things quite deeply..I investigated all of the resurrection accounts..it was surprising how far away it was from factual..none of it held up..i never investigated gilgamesh, but ive heard of it...zorotorism for example.. thats easy, it is a blatant copy of judiasm, mixed in with a reading of the messiah prophecies. there are critical differences however. they say the spirit of God is bad and good and He is only good. They worship the creation rather than the one who created it. there is no atonement, and salvation is by works. it is just like any other pagan religion, but with an idea of good and evil gained from judiasm and the prophecies of the messiah. zorro is a crude copy of christ, not the other way around as it turns out. Remember Satan is the accuser ie the prosecuting attorney. He understands the law down to the letter, he understood a messiah was to come..he always knows his rights.. >> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Is there a point where you're actually going to contribute something to the conversation, or are you just going to stay in the peanut gallery and snipe at me?
No one is out. Just because different Christians believe different things doesn't make them unchristian. Misled, perhaps, but anyone who believes on Christ is saved. Personally, I am non-denominational.
How is the book of John ruled out? What on earth are you talking about? The passages referring to what people call the rapture could be interperted a few different ways..I accept them, I just read them differently.
Look, it's clear you don't know anything about scripture. Why don't you do some research before you toss around these ignorant statements.
>> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
No, I don't believe in the rapture..I don't think it is biblical. I know a lot of Christians hope for that but I think it's a false doctrine. No, I don't believe in the May 21st 2011 date either..for two reasons. One is that scripture clearly states that no one knows the hour. That alone makes anyone setting a date automatically wrong. The other is that the person who made this prediction had made another prediction that the world would end in 1994. Obviously it didn't happen so that means that he is a false prophet. If a prophet makes a prediction and even one letter of it doesn't come true it means he is not a real prophet.
>> ^shuac:
While I certainly do not wish to add more stress to shiny by adding more questions to his docket...but ultimately, I cannot resist. And anyway, they're easy yes/no questions...
1) Do you believe in the rapture?
2) Do you believe that it will happen on May 21, 2011 as many theists predict?


ok.
so the pentacostals are out /scratches them off the list.
as is the book of john../more scratching.
any other books i should dismiss?


i am just following the conversation brother.
listening to your witness and taking notes.
so dont dismiss the books but allow for interpretation../check.
read more scripture../check
let me ask you a question.
since you feel im "sniping" from the peanut gallery.( i was being a snark..but snipe is nicer)
if you do not believe in the rapture and find it non-doctrinal,would you consider yourself to be a preterist?
do you consider yourself from ecclestiassitcal,calvinism or maybe even of a arminianism theosophical school of thought?
and if ecclestiassical..how have you resolved the issue of the nicean creed?
another i am curious as to how you may have resolved is zoroastrianism.
how have you been able to separate the seemingly identical stories from both the bible and this pre-christian religion?
i mean one could come to the conclusion that monotheism was actually born from this religion which was influential in judaism and christianity.
reading zarathustra's sermons one may find some close similarities to many of the earliest books of the bible.
or the story of gilgamesh and its seemingly identical recitation of noah,even though gilgamesh was centuries before noah.
how did you rationalize that particular conundrum?
one last question.
since you are christian,as am i,i am extremely curious how you were able to resolve the issue of the resurrection deities:
krishna,osiris,dionysus,mithra.
all were have purported to be the son of god.
to have began their ministry at an early age.
performed miracles.
persecuted and then executed.
dead for three days.
and on the third day were all resurrected.
what about the female resurrection deities?
ishtar and persephone?
they have similar stories too!
i am curious how you dealt with these particular theological dilemmas.

These are most excellent question(s)..I am happy to answer it..i will get back to you with all the facts, I will answer it in full but first I will just say that there is a massive amount of deception out there. Especially in these cases..a lot of half truths that people accept as whole ones. Not one of them bears any validity. The facts never hold up in these cases, and I mean 0 bears any true refutation of the facts. This world is fallen and mankinds new strategy is to try to forget about Him or write Him out..I will only say Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do. People believe they don't need God. They don't know they commit spiritual suicide. This fantasy world they dream up to replace Him is so ridiculous..It's been compared to disneyland. We are just drowning in existential bullshit. Primitive tribalism. Barbarianism. Extreme vanity and pride. No mercy, no forgiveness. In their coldness, people believe these lies because they have not much imagination of anything truly good and its always as good as who you really are. I find the truth is always accurate in situations like these. It is measured according to what it really is, and the well is poisoned by any lack of character, no matter how slight, because God is perfect. People aren't getting away with anything. God knows their hearts better than they do. If you're not good you won't know about it, you just couldn't imagine it really. And the bible says none of us are good. So we have to seek God. we are intolerant useless greedy selfish..there are just some of the synomyms i can think of..Peter Gabriels Big Time seems relevent..And some of them are Christians who are just sort of taking on the mantle for curtural reasons. Well the bible says these people have only borrowed the name and that is at a price. The facts always bear out, if people investigated they would figure that out. The truth always bears investigation by definition and the facts will always hold up. That is, that Jesus Christ is the living God and will heal you.

>> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Is there a point where you're actually going to contribute something to the conversation, or are you just going to stay in the peanut gallery and snipe at me?
No one is out. Just because different Christians believe different things doesn't make them unchristian. Misled, perhaps, but anyone who believes on Christ is saved. Personally, I am non-denominational.
How is the book of John ruled out? What on earth are you talking about? The passages referring to what people call the rapture could be interperted a few different ways..I accept them, I just read them differently.
Look, it's clear you don't know anything about scripture. Why don't you do some research before you toss around these ignorant statements.
>> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
No, I don't believe in the rapture..I don't think it is biblical. I know a lot of Christians hope for that but I think it's a false doctrine. No, I don't believe in the May 21st 2011 date either..for two reasons. One is that scripture clearly states that no one knows the hour. That alone makes anyone setting a date automatically wrong. The other is that the person who made this prediction had made another prediction that the world would end in 1994. Obviously it didn't happen so that means that he is a false prophet. If a prophet makes a prediction and even one letter of it doesn't come true it means he is not a real prophet.
>> ^shuac:
While I certainly do not wish to add more stress to shiny by adding more questions to his docket...but ultimately, I cannot resist. And anyway, they're easy yes/no questions...
1) Do you believe in the rapture?
2) Do you believe that it will happen on May 21, 2011 as many theists predict?


ok.
so the pentacostals are out /scratches them off the list.
as is the book of john../more scratching.
any other books i should dismiss?


i am just following the conversation brother.
listening to your witness and taking notes.
so dont dismiss the books but allow for interpretation../check.
read more scripture../check
let me ask you a question.
since you feel im "sniping" from the peanut gallery.( i was being a snark..but snipe is nicer)
if you do not believe in the rapture and find it non-doctrinal,would you consider yourself to be a preterist?
do you consider yourself from ecclestiassitcal,calvinism or maybe even of a arminianism theosophical school of thought?
and if ecclestiassical..how have you resolved the issue of the nicean creed?
another i am curious as to how you may have resolved is zoroastrianism.
how have you been able to separate the seemingly identical stories from both the bible and this pre-christian religion?
i mean one could come to the conclusion that monotheism was actually born from this religion which was influential in judaism and christianity.
reading zarathustra's sermons one may find some close similarities to many of the earliest books of the bible.
or the story of gilgamesh and its seemingly identical recitation of noah,even though gilgamesh was centuries before noah.
how did you rationalize that particular conundrum?
one last question.
since you are christian,as am i,i am extremely curious how you were able to resolve the issue of the resurrection deities:
krishna,osiris,dionysus,mithra.
all were have purported to be the son of god.
to have began their ministry at an early age.
performed miracles.
persecuted and then executed.
dead for three days.
and on the third day were all resurrected.
what about the female resurrection deities?
ishtar and persephone?
they have similar stories too!
i am curious how you dealt with these particular theological dilemmas.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Is there a point where you're actually going to contribute something to the conversation, or are you just going to stay in the peanut gallery and snipe at me?
No one is out. Just because different Christians believe different things doesn't make them unchristian. Misled, perhaps, but anyone who believes on Christ is saved. Personally, I am non-denominational.
How is the book of John ruled out? What on earth are you talking about? The passages referring to what people call the rapture could be interperted a few different ways..I accept them, I just read them differently.
Look, it's clear you don't know anything about scripture. Why don't you do some research before you toss around these ignorant statements.
>> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
No, I don't believe in the rapture..I don't think it is biblical. I know a lot of Christians hope for that but I think it's a false doctrine. No, I don't believe in the May 21st 2011 date either..for two reasons. One is that scripture clearly states that no one knows the hour. That alone makes anyone setting a date automatically wrong. The other is that the person who made this prediction had made another prediction that the world would end in 1994. Obviously it didn't happen so that means that he is a false prophet. If a prophet makes a prediction and even one letter of it doesn't come true it means he is not a real prophet.
>> ^shuac:
While I certainly do not wish to add more stress to shiny by adding more questions to his docket...but ultimately, I cannot resist. And anyway, they're easy yes/no questions...
1) Do you believe in the rapture?
2) Do you believe that it will happen on May 21, 2011 as many theists predict?


ok.
so the pentacostals are out /scratches them off the list.
as is the book of john../more scratching.
any other books i should dismiss?



i am just following the conversation brother.
listening to your witness and taking notes.
so dont dismiss the books but allow for interpretation../check.
read more scripture../check

let me ask you a question.
since you feel im "sniping" from the peanut gallery.( i was being a snark..but snipe is nicer)
if you do not believe in the rapture and find it non-doctrinal,would you consider yourself to be a preterist?
do you consider yourself from ecclestiassitcal,calvinism or maybe even of a arminianism theosophical school of thought?
and if ecclestiassical..how have you resolved the issue of the nicean creed?
another i am curious as to how you may have resolved is zoroastrianism.
how have you been able to separate the seemingly identical stories from both the bible and this pre-christian religion?
i mean one could come to the conclusion that monotheism was actually born from this religion which was influential in judaism and christianity.
reading zarathustra's sermons one may find some close similarities to many of the earliest books of the bible.
or the story of gilgamesh and its seemingly identical recitation of noah,even though gilgamesh was centuries before noah.
how did you rationalize that particular conundrum?
one last question.
since you are christian,as am i,i am extremely curious how you were able to resolve the issue of the resurrection deities:
krishna,osiris,dionysus,mithra.
all were have purported to be the son of god.
to have began their ministry at an early age.
performed miracles.
persecuted and then executed.
dead for three days.
and on the third day were all resurrected.

what about the female resurrection deities?
ishtar and persephone?
they have similar stories too!

i am curious how you dealt with these particular theological dilemmas.

>> ^EmptyFriend:

I'm not disagreeing. I'm actually currently in the middle of a research project on the decision to scrap Constellation and the implications. All I was saying is that taking the anger out on such a small program isn't fair. For $10M you'd have a hard time doing something as simple as upgrading all the PCs in a ship class to WindowsXP (and yes, that is something that is only now happening).
The total cost to launch a space shuttle into orbit is incredibly high though, also. Like in the $1B territory.
>> ^mentality:
>> ^EmptyFriend:
>> ^mentality:
So this is what $553,800,000,000 a year gets you.

_{Iraq and Afghanistan not included.}

good thing you took out the iraq and afghanistan money (or tried to at least), wouldn't want that number to seem ridiculously untrue.
a little search says this contract wasn't even $10 million (which is actually pretty small).
http://www.ga.com/news.php?read=1&id=72&page=7
EDIT: and just to be clear, i do think military and defense spending is way too high, but i at least support the development of new technologies as opposed to the continual support/retrofit of old stuff.


Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that new technologies to kill people were more important than other kinds of research. Good thing we're slashing NASA's budget so we can better conduct an asymmetrical war on terror using the power of electromagnetism.
Sorry for the snark, but the ridiculous defense spending, record deficit, budget cuts in all the wrong places, and development of weapons systems grossly out of touch with what's needed, is seriously pissing me off. And that goes for the F22/F35 too no matter how f awesome they are.




It's $10 million invested from the US office of Naval Research from June 2006 to Jan 2009. It doesn't say how much was invested in the last two years, and how much the project costs in total, including other sources of funding. And that's just for a proof of concept. How much is it going to cost taxpayers to make a version fit for service, and they start arming ships with it? Yeah, billions sound like the right territory.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm actually currently in the middle of a research project on the decision to scrap Constellation and the implications. All I was saying is that taking the anger out on such a small program isn't fair. For $10M you'd have a hard time doing something as simple as upgrading all the PCs in a ship class to WindowsXP (and yes, that is something that is only now happening).

The total cost to launch a space shuttle into orbit is incredibly high though, also. Like in the $1B territory.
>> ^mentality:

>> ^EmptyFriend:
>> ^mentality:
So this is what $553,800,000,000 a year gets you.

_{Iraq and Afghanistan not included.}

good thing you took out the iraq and afghanistan money (or tried to at least), wouldn't want that number to seem ridiculously untrue.
a little search says this contract wasn't even $10 million (which is actually pretty small).
http://www.ga.com/news.php?read=1&id=72&page=7
EDIT: and just to be clear, i do think military and defense spending is way too high, but i at least support the development of new technologies as opposed to the continual support/retrofit of old stuff.


Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that new technologies to kill people were more important than other kinds of research. Good thing we're slashing NASA's budget so we can better conduct an asymmetrical war on terror using the power of electromagnetism.
Sorry for the snark, but the ridiculous defense spending, record deficit, budget cuts in all the wrong places, and development of weapons systems grossly out of touch with what's needed, is seriously pissing me off. And that goes for the F22/F35 too no matter how f awesome they are.

[redacted]

>> ^EmptyFriend:

>> ^mentality:
So this is what $553,800,000,000 a year gets you.

_{Iraq and Afghanistan not included.}

good thing you took out the iraq and afghanistan money (or tried to at least), wouldn't want that number to seem ridiculously untrue.
a little search says this contract wasn't even $10 million (which is actually pretty small).
http://www.ga.com/news.php?read=1&id=72&page=7
EDIT: and just to be clear, i do think military and defense spending is way too high, but i at least support the development of new technologies as opposed to the continual support/retrofit of old stuff.



Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that new technologies to kill people were more important than other kinds of research. Good thing we're slashing NASA's budget so we can better conduct an asymmetrical war on terror using the power of electromagnetism.

*Sorry for the snark, but the ridiculous defense spending, record deficit, budget cuts in all the wrong places, and development of weapons systems grossly out of touch with what's needed, is seriously pissing me off. And that goes for the F22/F35 too no matter how f***** awesome they are.

Animals, when I first read this reply, I did not know who wrote it. When I read your name, I smiled. Thank you Animals, not just for the apology, but for the insight of how a good man's mind can work when not blinded by the Blizzard-Of-Hate (Or, less that Blizzard, blinded by the rhetoric of his own mind.) For the record, I used to be an unequalled troll. I was God back then, and no one was allowed to have 'silly' ideas outside what 'should be,' but I did have one flaw. I looked to myself and asked questions. And I did not like my own answers.

As to you being immutable--it is true that I assumed you would not readily change

To the well-answered points you made;

Even if this video is a parody, some religious evangy would gobble this response up and spew it back out. But they would probably mean "inspired the bible", and yet still the sift would pound away for a simple mistake of words-versus-meaning. On a side note, I have heard far worse than this video's content from godly men--and it was stated in seriousness. I still cringe...

You bring up the multiple levels of feelings on this issue... To that I say and ask--it is factually true what you say, but when so many tiers/levels are calculated, doesn't the entire tier system become useless? (He is middle class making 40,000$. He is 'above middle class, making 40,005$, and so forth and so on.)

I tier this argument into three simple groups, Those that Believe, Those that Do Not, and Those who Couldn't Care Less. I fall into the Care Less. I know that list is subjective, and probably wrong of me, but I do it simply for simplicity.

Onto control--every nation, country, culture, etc. of humanity has created some form of control. Whether norms, government, religion, taboos, implied demands--or something societal, like commercialism--there has not been a gathering of man that has not exerted control. I am not saying control is evil, mind you--just necessary. In fact, when man is left untouched by any which way by another man (I.e. abandoned from birth, and never in human contact,) he becomes feral, and nothing smarter than an animal.

The control points I bring up are cheap for one reason--it just is easy to say and give examples. Kind of like 'humans need food.' So it is simple of me to say, and offers little but I feel it needs said.

Again, thank you fro proving me wrong.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

Okay, give dummy lady a break. She meant to say "Who inspired the bible" but put foot in mouth.

DFT confirmed that this was a parody so I think she meant to say what she did. But even if she were being earnest I don't know if I would go that far. Unless she then made a correction after the fact, say in a new video or in the video description, why would you infer something from her words if she didn't outright say what you were inferring? If we played along, would she have had a coherent point if we replaced "write" with "inspired"? Would her conclusion have made more or less sense, in context of the "gotcha!" moment she was going for? Less, imo.

But one side is not crap. There are two sides that are crap here. Those who believe in god and those who think lowly of those people

I think there are MANY "sides" when it comes to the number of levels/tiers of belief (or acknowledgment of certain assumptions) in the religious or the scientific and still MANY more varying degrees of self-righteousness and smug superiority within each of those.
What the hell am I saying, essentially? I'm saying, why the false dichotomy? Not everyone is either A or B. Life isn't binary.

Humanity created religion because it needed to be controlled.

There are many possible reasons for why religion is so ubiqitous, like our innate tendency to assign agency to things from a very young age, for one brief example. Your explanation sounds like a nominal fallacy, i.e. naming-explaining fallacy. Humans need to be controlled. How do we know humans need to be controlled? Because they created religion (which is a social tool for control). The only evidence provided for why we need to be controlled is the fact that religion can be used as a tool for control and that we created it. Does this really address the "why we need it" part? It's a totally post-hoc explanation which itself is not an explanation. I hope I made I sense there.

In fact, to add a point. Faith in god may be misplaced---but faith is still science based. It keeps people alive who should be dead, it is there from birth to death, it is a human condition.

Yes, we can scientifically measure the mental, consequential, and physiological effects religion(s) has on our bodies and brains in space and time. Is that the same as saying that the underlying explanation providing the foundation for the belief (a belief which has REAL, measurable effects in people's lives) is scientifically sound?
As an aside, Lawdeedaw, I just want to sincerely apologize for the overly aggressive tone and sometimes distracting ratio of "snark-to-common courtesy" I've taken with you in our past "encounters". I've been beginning to reevaluate my tact when bringing up objections with those I disagree with in the past weeks. I readily admit I have anger issues and am trying to truly address them rather than let them define my presence here on the Sift and in meatspace. I have a hard time playing nice with people I feel misrepresent me or others I may agree with. Many things have brought me to this realization, mostly meatspace issues. I am sorry (this also goes to anyone else I may have inadvertently or quite directly and thoughtlessly insulted in the past), there I said it!
See? How's that for a "smug, superior atheist" (I know you have thought this of me on occasion) being immutable in his viewpoint/outlook? <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tonguewink.gif">

Okay, give dummy lady a break. She meant to say "Who inspired the bible" but put foot in mouth.

DFT confirmed that this was a parody so I think she meant to say what she did. But even if she were being earnest I don't know if I would go that far. Unless she then made a correction after the fact, say in a new video or in the video description, why would you infer something from her words if she didn't outright say what you were inferring? If we played along, would she have had a coherent point if we replaced "write" with "inspired"? Would her conclusion have made more or less sense, in context of the "gotcha!" moment she was going for? Less, imo.

But one side is not crap. There are two sides that are crap here. Those who believe in god and those who think lowly of those people

I think there are MANY "sides" when it comes to the number of levels/tiers of belief (or acknowledgment of certain assumptions) in the religious or the scientific and still MANY more varying degrees of self-righteousness and smug superiority within each of those.

What the hell am I saying, essentially? I'm saying, why the false dichotomy? Not everyone is either A or B. Life isn't binary.

Humanity created religion because it needed to be controlled.

There are many possible reasons for why religion is so ubiqitous, like our innate tendency to assign agency to things from a very young age, for one brief example. Your explanation sounds like a nominal fallacy, i.e. naming-explaining fallacy. Humans need to be controlled. How do we know humans need to be controlled? Because they created religion (which is a social tool for control). The only evidence provided for why we need to be controlled is the fact that religion can be used as a tool for control and that we created it. Does this really address the "why we need it" part? It's a totally post-hoc explanation which itself is not an explanation. I hope I made I sense there.

In fact, to add a point. Faith in god may be misplaced---but faith is still science based. It keeps people alive who should be dead, it is there from birth to death, it is a human condition.

Yes, we can scientifically measure the mental, consequential, and physiological effects religion(s) has on our bodies and brains in space and time. Is that the same as saying that the underlying explanation providing the foundation for the belief (a belief which has REAL, measurable effects in people's lives) is scientifically sound?

As an aside, Lawdeedaw, I just want to sincerely apologize for the overly aggressive tone and sometimes distracting ratio of "snark-to-common courtesy" I've taken with you in our past "encounters". I've been beginning to reevaluate my tact when bringing up objections with those I disagree with in the past weeks. I readily admit I have anger issues and am trying to truly address them rather than let them define my presence here on the Sift and in meatspace. I have a hard time playing nice with people I feel misrepresent me or others I may agree with. Many things have brought me to this realization, mostly meatspace issues. I am sorry (this also goes to anyone else I may have inadvertently or quite directly and thoughtlessly insulted in the past), there I said it!

See? How's that for a "smug, superior atheist" (I know you have thought this of me on occasion) being immutable in his viewpoint/outlook?

Man, am I ever sorry I used that phrase. If it wasn't cliched garbage at the beginning of the comment section, it sure is now.

Although it has generated some amusement. And some genuine comments about the whole Assange thing. So that's good. My snark fit combined with your hissy fit got some juice flowing.

I use the word Hissy with affection, not derision.



In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
I'm about to write a post in reply to both bareboards2 and fusionaut.
@bareboards2 I was never confused about what you meant by mentioning the Hitler/veg/dog thing. The analogy isn't that hard to understand but I dont think you understood what I was getting at. It's trivial I know, but I find it a bit frustrating at times because you don't have to say "just sayin" when you said something. It's as stupid as "I'm about to say _____" right before you say something. It could be used for emphasis but now it's just cliched garbage in the language.
Also I think @Fusionaut may be confused sexually based on his post. Just sayin.
This has been my post in which I replied to both bareboards2 and fusionaut.

p.s. Which parts of this post are unnecessary?

p.p.s. All of it!

You do know that Yusuf has apologized for taking part in the fatwa? I was going to snark on Fox News for bringing that up without the following events... but Empire is cutting a slice from that same cake.

THAT is why Yusuf was on that stage. Because he went to a crazy place and came back again.

>> ^Hybrid:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://gwiz665.videosift.com" title="member since February 22nd, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#d6ba07">gwiz665, indeed she is, coming in at 5' 11". Who would have thought a video like this could be such a learning experience for everyone?


now that's some snark there lolz