search results matching tag: spoken

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (271)     Sift Talk (18)     Blogs (7)     Comments (1000)   

CNN anchors taken to school over bill mahers commentary

shinyblurry says...

Nonsense.

If you were a true Christian, you'd follow the laws of the old testament too.
I presume you don't go into town everyday and put people of other religions to the sword?


I want to address this scripture quotation first:

Matthew 5:17

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

You have fundamentally misunderstood what Jesus is saying here. What do you think He is talking about? What do you think He means when He said He came to fulfill the law? Please elaborate.. This, however, is what He was talking about:

John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

He fulfilled what the law and prophets said about Him on the cross.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

What did they write concerning Him?

Luke 24:25 And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!

Luke 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"

You need to understand what was written about Jesus and how He fulfilled it before you can understand what He was talking about.

Your misunderstanding of the gospel and Old Testament law not withstanding, a true Christian is not under the old covenant, they are under the new covenant.

Romans 10:4-10 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.

But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

The old covenant is for Israel, the new covenant is for the whole world. Christians are not under law, but grace.

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

So you can drop the "no true scotsman" fallacy....

It's funny you would invoke this fallacy, yet state earlier "If you were a true Christian.." Yet, according to Jesus, there are true and false Christians:

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

A true Muslim follows Allah, and Allah has instructed his followers to exterminate all of the nonbelievers.

ChaosEngine said:

Nonsense.

If you were a true Christian, you'd follow the laws of the old testament too.
I presume you don't go into town everyday and put people of other religions to the sword?

So you can drop the "no true scotsman" fallacy....

Cameron's Conference Rap

dannym3141 says...

What sentiment? Cameron has hammered the poor and needy of this country, sold off the post office to his chummies at half price, raised tuition fees (thanks very much Clegg) and nearly ripped Great Britain apart. Fortunately he knew the right people to oil up and got major banks and businesses to pull out in the few days prior to the vote, scaring people into saying no.

Every single scot i've spoken to (and i speak to loads, my mum lives there) has said that they would let the north come with them if they could and they only want to leave because Westminster and the south are completely disconnected from the rest of the country. It's a different world, and the people running the system have absolutely no experience what life is like for the people that have to use it.

Even John Major came out and said that there are too many (something like 80%) rich background public schoolboys in government. Can you tell me with a straight face that you've been to places like Blackpool near where i live, had to use the buses or queue for unemployment, or had family members suffering with disabilities and/or cancer, and then tell me that you think people like Call-Me-Dave in any way represent their best interests or understand their problems, struggling day to day?

I don't want to sound aggressive, but i do have experience with things like that, and some people in this country are getting to the point of desperation but of course that kinda thing doesn't get on the national news and the majority remain oblivious. If we don't see significant democratic reform in this country, i predict a significant social uprising within a lifetime.

arghness said:

Disagree with the sentiment, but it's been done very well!

2 year old girl scolds her Mum for laughing at her singing

Jon Stewart Goes After Fox in Ferguson Monologue

dannym3141 says...

Not only do i think this is wrong, but i think it is obviously and patently wrong.

It is demonstrable that a confrontation does not necessarily escalate the longer it goes on for. If you've been taught that in training by someone purporting to be an expert then i despair. I almost feel at a loss for where to begin - i have been in thousands of confrontations that de-escalated due to more time passing allowing both parties to explain or understand better, or for the blood to cool down. I've seen thousands of the same types of confrontation happening to other people. It literally happens all the time; misunderstandings get corrected and the situation de-escalates.

I hope that the brief explanation has betrayed what you really meant. Perhaps you were talking about a specific range of situations with a violent individual.

Or perhaps that's the problem and someone has been training law enforcement this falsehood which effectively encourages you to use the most extreme measure you have to end the conflict more quickly and keep it at a safely low level of escalation. And then you end up with mine- and rocket-resistant urban combat vehicles patrolling the streets, teams of camo'd police holding weapons INCORRECTLY in the presence of civilians on your own streets, and the mowing down of unarmed shoplifters...... all because it's more kind that way? I refute that, and before anyone says the most dangerous words ever spoken 'but we've always done it that way', in a discussion about the ineptitude or otherwise of law enforcement you aren't allowed the premise "law enforcement's methods are and always have been the best way to do things." -- Law enforcement, along with politics, should be the most heavily scrutinised and re-scrutinised systems that exist - because of their unique position to affect people.

I do NOT consider the concern for the safety of a police officer to be greater than the concern for the rights of a citizen; i was under the impression that police were the defence line between citizens and criminals, they put their lives on the line to keep society safe and running. Their job is to ensure we can be citizens, and they are paid to uphold the ideals of the society - freedom, respect for the individual and personal security. I genuinely hope they do so safely, but you don't play with feathers unless you're willing to get your arse tickled, as the saying goes. It is very possible to be safe, respectful and understanding all at the same time in the pursuit of law enforcement. If a person does not have the ability to behave that way they should not be in the job in the same way as someone who finds kids irritating and hit-able shouldn't go into childcare.

Lawdeedaw said:

1-A fun fact is that the longer a confrontation goes on for the further it escalates. By doing nothing you are letting it get further than by doing something.

Jon Stewart Goes After Fox in Ferguson Monologue

enoch says...

@lantern53

learn to read and stop injecting your own bias on the comments towards you my friend.

nobody said you were racist (not on this thread anyways) they said you "seemed",which is to say 'appeared" "your intent may possibly be".

i have not seen anybody on this thread state with conviction that the cop was in the wrong.in fact i am seeing most here postulate the exact opposite i.e:the cop may just have been in the right.

what i was attempting to put forth was that this may be a systematic flaw and not just one individual incident.the "US vs THEM" is a technique that works particularly well with most people and even more so with police (at least the ones i have spoken with).this polemic can be evidenced in this very thread."you lefties".."you progressives" .

all labels meant to divide people.
and they are meaningless.

but it easier to judge someone when they have been demonized.

Sexualization vs Objectification

dannym3141 says...

I'd just like to say that this does go both ways though..

I know a couple of different guys with Asperger's and some other kinds of developmental issues from where i go swimming, and several times in the past i've seen a female react towards those guys like they've been weird or creepy when all they did was say "Hello" like i've seen them do a hundred times before to all types of people. I've even met women there who have spoken to me, been quite happy and talkative, what-have-you, even flirty, and then either said to me "some weird creepy guy <one of my friends> was trying to talk to me in the jacuzzi", or they might give me an "oh my god" look if one of them says hello to her. Body language, facial expression, how they talk all changes when they address them... I feel my skin crawl when i come across someone like that.

I only say this because i think that if we all try to be nicer and kinder to everyone, to be happy and interested in people, we can not only solve the issues raised by the video and in your comment, but also the ones raised in my comment, the ones not even mentioned here, like racism, facism and homophobia.

I think we need feminism, masculism, the LGBT, NAACP and god knows what else to all come together and realise that everyone is tackling the same problem which simply manifests itself in different proportions to different peoples - we're all here for one single life-time, so if we spend it being nicer and friendlier and more courteous and generous we can make life much more enjoyable all round, and no one will have to worry about cat-calling, bitchiness, homophobia or racism.

kir_mokum said:

because they're inundated with dudes calling them sexy as if they are a sex object. being able to differentiate between you saying someone is sexy but also meaning they're a rad human and you saying someone is sexy but just meaning you wanna fuck them is pretty much impossible if they don't know you. generally speaking calling someone sexy should be reserved until after you've established that you're not a dickhead.

The world's first levitating bluetooth speaker

ChaosEngine says...

Regarding sound quality, the masses have spoken and their response is "meh, good enough".

Convenience is now prized over quality.

I find it hilarious when people spend thousands on a sound system and then plug a mp3 player into it...

Bloody topless spoken word performance of Swing Low Sweet Ch

Tim Harford: What Prison Camps Can Teach You About Economy

enoch says...

@Trancecoach
you could have commented on the video without quoting me.
but you didnt do that,did you?
care to explain why?

/scratch that..i dont really care,so dont bother.
you have already made it abundantly clear how see/feel/perceive me.

i am familiar with the mises institute and most likely BEFORE it became your religion.
i have also read the PDF you posted (multiple times on multiple threads) and what i really got out of it was where the majority of your arguments arise.

i even recall an incident where you were caught plagiarizing one of the mises institutes contributors.

the reason i mention these things is that i have been witness to you consistently telling people to think for themselves and to make their own arguments,when in fact,it is YOU who have copied others peoples arguments and called them your own,using the same source material for almost every argument you posit.

do you know who else does that? fundamentalist christians.

they too speak with an air a fake authority and arrogance given to them by the written word.they too deride and ridicule anyone who would dare disagree with them.

you ridicule me for liking this video?
and then have the arrogance to suggest i read YOUR bible..*cough*..i mean mises.

this assumes two things:
1.i am not familiar with mises.
2.i am willing to devote that kind of time in regards to economics (which i have already explained to you,i am not).

neither of which have been evidenced by my commentary here.

i would go as far to say that many people are not willing to spend that kind of time on economics and short videos like this,while maybe not as in-depth as you would like,do offer us all a small inclination in regards to simple economics.

now maybe that is not a smart decision.maybe we should all take the time to understand something that affects us all,and maybe your suggestions have merit and are worth pursuing.

but the arrogance.........
and the belittling...
the ridiculing...
hard to listen to possible sage words when they are spoken in the language of the fanatic.

i do not say these words to harm,nor lightly.
i am quite confident you are unaware you come across this way.
but somebody has to say it.
so i said it.

realizing how little you think of me and my opinion,you may dismiss this.
but i beseech you not to ignore my words.
i am not the only one who feels this way.

please consider your tone when engaging in something that you are obviously very passionate about.

Israeli crowd cheers with joy as missile hits Gaza on CNN

newtboy says...

Actually I have seen the opposite, this 'fringe' as you call it being the norm, but being hidden from view as they understand it looks bad to cheer a hospital being bombed, but they can't help themselves.
As you noted, empathy is never a concern, forgotten in the good times, actively fought against in the bad.
Again, I disagree that this is a 'fringe' element of Israel, from everything I've seen, and those I have spoken to directly (including family members that work for the consulate) the eradication of Palestine and it's people are something they would love to see. The tiny minority dissenting are usually attacked, beaten, arrested, and often disappeared. We have seen this repeatedly in recent times.
Yeah, it's the oppression of Hamas that's the main controlling issue for the Palestinians, not the oppression of the occupying nation to the right....NOT. Many Palestinians are vocal about wanting peace...but not so in Israel, where a dissenting voice is quickly and violently silenced....like here.
http://videosift.com/video/Young-American-Jew-Stands-up-for-Palestine
As a people that suffered due to this tribalism, you might think they would understand it's foibles and avoid them, instead they have jumped head first into it themselves....making themselves akin to a fourth right.

EDIT: as an aside, it seems odd to me that all those claiming Israel has a 'right to defend itself' have already forgotten that Israel fired the first volley, so I hope after being reminded of that fact, they will admit that really Palestine has the 'right to defend itself', while Israel is the aggressor....right?

shveddy said:

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.

Coulthard on team orders

chingalera says...

Again with the 'clearly' and 'actually' when used in a sentence or spoken...Actually quite irritating and clearly telling....CLeeeearly. What type of troll are you, CE? The fairer and ultimately honest toll-taker or some hairy stinker under a bridge otherwise avoided for a longer and more pastoral route??

Sorry for the server troubles (Sift Talk Post)

Watching 'Game Of Thrones' With Non-Book Readers

Xaielao says...

I think all book readers do this. I tend to watch the show communally and as the only book reader I try to keep a stone face while also getting great joy of of the reaction of my friends and SO.

I also recommend the episode reviews by TYT's sister channel Whattheflick. Cenk and the gang talk about the episode and try and guess future events while one or two book-readers present do their utmost to not reveal anything through body language. It's always fun to see the show from the perspective of people who don't generally know everything that's coming. Though, S5 is supposed to have more scenes that are only hinted at or spoken of in the books. So that'll be sweet.

That is so long as they don't take out super important, character-altering stuff like.. oh I don't know... the truth about Tysha! Grumble.. grumble.

Emily's Abortion Video

chingalera says...

Assuming the 'negative outcome' scenario, also the nature of human consciousness (so simply and patently codified), what 'preparation' beyond one's will would prepare a human for a planet made hostile to humanity BY humanity?

Life itself is an injustice according to the parameters we are willing to accept as just or fair or equitable. So Emily here decides to film her abortion procedure for her own benefit, her own ego, a journalistic form of self-therapy perhaps? I would challenge any American white woman's spoken motivations for ending a pregnancy and find by peeling the layers of the onion away in about 10 minutes of Q&A that that little piece of meat growing inside of her needs to go because it's gonna be an inconvenience to her lifestyle, a challenge to her own limited consciousness of the nature of life and the universe.

Swat that little nuisance before it lands on my food, for crissakes.

charliem said:

A human is to humanity, as an elephant is to elephanty.....a collection of cells contained with a womb, not yet born, not yet given rise to conciousness, the ability to think cognicent ideas, the ability to understand, language, comprehension, maths, compassion, empathy, society etc...this is what dictates humanity, not just the species by which the genome belongs.

The ability to participate.

These fetuses are not human, not yet. They are still developing.

Their brains have not developed enough to even breathe, let alone have cognitive thinking.

This is no more 'murder' than killing a common house fly is 'murder'.

To let it continue to grow, to force a woman to term given negative outcomes for both the child, the parent, and society in general as a result of not being ready or prepared, either due to finance or social circumstance, all in the name of your religious or political beliefs, is such a massive irony filled injustice on our society....and its a shame that you cant see it.

Common Core U.S.A. ~ Re-Education & Indoctrination Learning

JiggaJonson says...

I'm not all for the Common Core because I've decided that teaching is an imperfect duty ( http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/rlee/intrau04/oh/k-perf.html ).

What I mean is, the flexibility required of the duty of teaching makes it so hard nosed data collection is never going to accurately reflect the quality of the teaching being done. Therefore, the standardized testing that goes hand in hand with the common core should be abolished.

I have a student right now who can't stop his limbs from going numb and needs to constantly leave class because of some scary combination of ADHD meds and energy drinks he took. I've spoken with mom and the nurse, given him assignments, but beyond that there's not much I can do to reach out to this student. It is not fair or right that my pay be tied to a student(s) in a bizarre situation beyond my control.

And yes, I could be a teacher from pop culture films that follows him home and just mentors this kid, but this student is not alone. I've got literally 150 students all with unique problems and baggage. I get them for 5 hours a week (when they are actually there) and they spend the other 163 hours of the week doing who knows what.

THAT SAID

This video, however, has obvious motives besides just abolishing the common core. Sex education SHOULD be a part of the curriculum and states that adopt sex education tend to have the lowest incidents of teen pregnancies. Mississippi teaches their sex ed classes by passing around peppermint patties (yes, really: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/02/nation/la-na-ms-teen-pregnancy-20140403 ) and, not surprisingly, has the highest incidents of teen pregnancy.

Get it through your fucking skull, religious nuts. Teaching sex ed PREVENTS kids from having sex, not the other way around.

Common core is certainly not something positive that's happened in the education system in the past year, but I'd still take it over what some jesus cheerleaders want to replace it with.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists