Thank you @shinyblurry for the contribution. Even if I disagree on the basic message, it was interesting input that this discussion was IMO lacking so far. Now somebody's might post something dismissive now (I have to admit, asshole that I am, my fingers are actually itching in way trolls know too well) but I found that worth reading. Which brings me back to the point Mitchell made.
The issue is dialogue and how disruptive the selfrighteousness of those who found their definitive answer can be. We can argue semantics even further than already done here but it doesn't matter how gnostic or theistic one is. There is a silent majority consisting of various levels of belief and disbelief and at the fringes of both sides people tend to get loud, sometimes unbearably so.
What the screaming people at the edge like to do is to get bogged down into dogmas and discussions of detail but in the end both kind of extremists would like to force their worldviews on everyone else. I think it is certainly not acceptable to insist that people seeking solace in religion must be idiots who don't know how the world works. If a woman who just lost her child wants to tell herself that this is part of gods plan then I have no right to walk up to her and tell her she's full of shit. Even though I know this to be true. We all live in a world we're poorly equipped to understand and have to make sense of it somehow.
The problem starts once you force yourself onto somebody. The point I made before is that one side's extremists is assholes who walk up to grieving women and tell them their full of shit, the other side is people executing that woman for praying to the wrong god. It's easy for me to pick a side here.
However, most people aren't that extreme. Most people are more civil than that and I believe/know that a more civil and understanding approach is better. It necessary to push back against those who are harmful in executing their beliefs, be it Osama Bin Laden or Rick Santorum (Santorum he he) but everyone else is better dealt with in a respectful manner. Antagonism doesn't feed dialogue well.
That is why I resisted my urge to make fun of the deeply religious guy posting here. I really wanted to because I disagree with his worldview so strongly but all he did was stating his journey to where he now in his life and on top of that, he did it without telling anybody else here off. I would be the asshole if I would react like a Hitchens. I'd rather behave like a Tyson (not the rapey one). LIke most humans, I want to be one of the good guys. It's just not that easy to figure out how to be one.
In the end it all boils down to this (and several posts in this thread truly showed it): Why can't we be friends? Why can't we get along?
Because we're humans. That's how we roll.

The Agony of Defeat Guy - Where Is He Now? has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

I use to love me some Wide World of Sports.
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Agony-of-Defeat-Guy-Where-Is-He-Now

shill for Obama, where is he now? AWOL

...Was that supposed to be poignant, or just an extremely obscure inside joke?

Anyway, this "debate" was a bit ridiculous. Howard Samuels was, as others have already pointed out, very clearly straw manning - at no point was it suggested that opposing party thought marijuana should be legalized for recreational use by big companies.

It should also be noted that while Samuels runs a rehab center and in fact has a personal history of fighting addiction, this also has a negative effect on his ability to form an opinion on this situation. For him, extreme vulnerability to addiction is the norm. He himself is probably very prone to addiction, and he exclusively works with other individuals who are also extremely prone to addiction. I would say that the only people for whom marijuana can be seen as a gateway drug is the sort of people for whom alchohol, caffeine, nicotine, adrenaline or really anything that could possibly be abused could be seen as a "gateway drug."

These are the sort of people who always go too far. They drink too much coffee, they take too many risks, they smoke too much and they are always that one guy who gets embarrassingly drunk at parties because he just doesn't know how to limit himself.

But these people shouldn't be seen as the norm because honestly, they simply aren't.

And because Samuels apparently does think that these people define the norm, his view cannot be seen as being comprehensive. He's only looking at the extreme ends of the spectrum, and even then, he's really only looking at the potential negative extremes, because that is where he used to be, and it's where the people he now tries to heal are stuck.

He used to be DJ. He now has 2 tables as well but he may get rid of the rythm now!!!

Sounds like the rampage ended when his gun jammed. The CC was fortunate. Right place, right time. But I wonder if our hero would have pulled his gun and saved the day had the shooter continued to fire unhindered. Your "real story" is a product of your imagination. Our hero still allowed two people to die, didn't he? Now, many people would the shooter have killed if he didn't have a gun, or even access to a gun?

Apologies to the CC. I'm sure he did what he could, when he could. My point is that having CC around doesn't ensure jack shit, except that there may be more bullets flying around a crowded area, if they even stick around and shoot. I don't believe people CC primarily to protect other people. I think the mindset is largely self-preservation.

Back in 1993, I remember this guy with a bad leg, living in a slum in Freetown (Sierra Leone's capital), in a tiny room plastered with Bollywood and Hong Kong B-movie posters, and whose door was made of pieces of cardboard glued together. He didn't have much.
He was called "Prof" Abubakar and made a living creating and selling steel wire sculptures from stuff he was scavenging off the streets. You're probably thinking of African steel wire toys, but his were crazy, there was nothing like it. They were incredibly complex, animated, spring-loaded, or with some sparkling devices.

Some years later, someone I knew came across him. He was exposing at the Pompidou centre in Paris.

Two decades later, it's like Kelvin Doe is his Internet-era spiritual son. I hope he does as well.

[EDIT]
Correct name: Abu Bakarr Mansaray (bio | one of his contraptions). He now lives in the Netherlands.

I was going to say something about how thanks to that helmet he now has a second-chance to do something clever with that brain of his,

... but then the lens flare and 'rate comment subscribe!' promotion came up and I realized the best I should hope for is he won't follow trucks as closely.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Yogi:
it is THE stance you have to take if you want funding to get elected.

Many of the stances he took to get elected have turned out to be just that. Gitmo is open; the wars continue on Bush's schedule; the MCA is in effect; minimum wage is $7.25; he now supports gay marriage; he sang the praises of "prolonged detention" not 3 months into his term. He can't change his position on drug laws because...?


He can't if he wants the support of the pharmaceutical industry.

>> ^Yogi:

it is THE stance you have to take if you want funding to get elected.


Many of the stances he took to get elected have turned out to be just that. Gitmo is open; the wars continue on Bush's schedule; the MCA is in effect; minimum wage is $7.25; he now supports gay marriage; he sang the praises of "prolonged detention" not 3 months into his term. He can't change his position on drug laws because...?

>> ^longde:

Read the book Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea to see how these bastards fubar'd their country.
I think the dynasty just ended. The son has nowhere near the devotion his father garnered.


Well, technically Kim-il Sung's preserved corpse was still the President, right? Now that Kim Jong-il is dead, does he now succeed him in that post?

Kim Jong-un could possibly keep the charade going as long as he claims a direct line of communication to the spirit of his father/grand-pappy, no? Jong-il wasn't nearly as popular as his father when he died either (though probably much more so than Jong-un at the time of his father's death, as he was publicly groomed for future leadership for, what, 15 years prior?).

I'll check for that book next time I'm at the library. It's a shame Hitchens had to go right before this arshole, I would've loved to hear his opinion on this entire situation. Prolific as he was, it's likely there are some articles/videos out there concerning Jong-un's suitability/future as heir presumptive.

Like Matthews in this interview, I don't think it is necessary to get into those questionable incidents to that speak to Paul's motives. His policies in this area speak for themselves, and can't stand the light of day.

It is so striking how this man, who is so clear and succinct on matters of foreign policy and even some domestic issues (like drug laws in the beginning of the clip), can lapse into an indecipherable mess when confronted by his own positions on civil rights.

And I think that those particular views on civil rights have a huge following. Clearly it didn't hurt his son to have them.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Now that Ron Paul has gone mainstream, he's no longer able to hide behind his popular foreign policy views. He has already flip flopped on border fences (he now supports them), DADT (he now opposes) and evolution (he now supports).
He has had a long and troubled history with race. He was against the civil rights act, he was the only senator that voted against recognizing Brown vs the Board of Education (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml), he accepted campaign donations from a white supremacist and did not give the money back (http://www.chron.com/news/politics/articl
e/Ron-Paul-keeps-500-from-white-supremacist-aide-1805505.php), his official newsletter had a number of racist statements - which he initially said were taken out of context before he changed his story and blamed the quotes on an editor - he never ran a retraction, he called Abraham Lincoln a tyrant and he suggested the North should have paid the South for the slaves instead of going to war.
Getting national media attention comes at the cost of more scrutiny and criticism. The libertarian movement is all growed up.

Now that Ron Paul has gone mainstream, he's no longer able to hide behind his popular foreign policy views. He has already flip flopped on border fences (he now supports them), DADT (he now opposes) and evolution (he now supports).

He has had a long and troubled history with race. He was against the civil rights act, he was the only senator that voted against recognizing Brown vs the Board of Education (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml), he accepted campaign donations from a white supremacist and did not give the money back (http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Ron-Paul-keeps-500-from-white-supremacist-aide-1805505.php), his official newsletter had a number of racist statements - which he initially said were taken out of context before he changed his story and blamed the quotes on an editor - he never ran a retraction, he called Abraham Lincoln a tyrant and he suggested the North should have paid the South for the slaves instead of going to war.

Getting national media attention comes at the cost of more scrutiny and criticism. The libertarian movement is all growed up.

You can't replace Jesus with Thor..Jesus is a real person. Thor didn't die for your sins, or do things like this:

John 13

It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.

The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”

Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”

Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

“Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”

Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
@shinyblurry, read your post out loud. Replace every instance of the work "jesus" with the word "thor". Still sound like a good argument?