# Net Neutrality is the end of TV as you know it - Mark Cuban



## tluxon (Feb 28, 2002)

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...gs-will-spill-over-tv-as-you-know-it-is-over/

How would you feel if your TV bitrate was no longer given priority over all other "bit" traffic on the internet?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Good riddance.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

You mean like how Verizon deliberately let Youtube and Netflix "bits" choke for 2 years?

Also, TV itself isn't delivered via internet.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

His argument is partially right but also partially wrong. His argument that bits are bits is right, and I think eventually the cable running to your house will be a dumb pipe into the internet and your TV service will be an add-on service akin to Netflix, Hulu, etc... But his argument about censorship is BS. Cable channels are not bound by any censorship rules. They could show hardcore porn on cable if they wanted. Only video broadcast OTA is bound by censorship rules. Cable channel choose to sensor certain things to appease advertisers, but it's optional and unlikely to change regardless of how it's sent down the pipe to the consumer.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

Mark Cuban's main act is to get attention by making seriously outrageous proclamations about things which might have some tiny kernel of fact embedded in them (like the NFL will implode in 10 years - another rant from a little while ago).


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I agree with this part of his statement:
"Dallas Mavericks owner and investor Mark Cuban predicted that proposed FCC Internet regulations will end up impacting TV and your TV as you know it is over on Thursdays Squawk Alley on CNBC."​What I disagree with is why the above is correct. First the FCC is not trying to or going to regulate cable/satellite/OTA with this ruling. The reason this will impact TV is because it will keep the Internet open and that is what will impact TV. Now that the Comcasts & Verizons of the world can not block anything coming down their Internet pipes the migration to services like Netflix, Hulu+, Youtube, Sling TV, etc., etc. will continue and accelerate. People have been claiming cable/satellite are dead men walking for awhile now and this is likely to help move that forward. I am guessing we have at least a solid decade of cable being available just like it is now but as the Internet pipes get built out consumers will be the ones killing the current cable model not the FCC.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Exactly. All this regulation does is prevent the cable companies form using their position as your broadband provider to protect their current TV business model, thus allowing people to choose viable alternatives.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> I agree with this part of his statement:
> "Dallas Mavericks owner and investor Mark Cuban predicted that proposed FCC Internet regulations will end up impacting TV and your TV as you know it is over on Thursdays Squawk Alley on CNBC."​What I disagree with is why the above is correct. First the FCC is not trying to or going to regulate cable/satellite/OTA with this ruling. The reason this will impact TV is because it will keep the Internet open and that is what will impact TV. Now that the Comcasts & Verizons of the world can not block anything coming down their Internet pipes the migration to services like Netflix, Hulu+, Youtube, Sling TV, etc., etc. will continue and accelerate. People have been claiming cable/satellite are dead men walking for awhile now and this is likely to help move that forward. I am guessing we have at least a solid decade of cable being available just like it is now but as the Internet pipes get built out consumers will be the ones killing the current cable model not the FCC.


While Net Neutrality is a great thing, it's not just going to topple cable and bundles. The issue with cable and satellite and bundles isn't the delivery mechanism, it's the content providers. It doesn't matter whether it's DBS, QAM, IPTV, or OTT-IPTV, the content providers are holding things hostage. There's no technical reason that DirecTV, Comcast, FIOS, U-Verse, etc, couldn't do a-la-carte today if the content providers would allow it.

What might change TV is actions by a few providers like CableVision, who is trying to fight the force-bundling practices.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Bigg said:


> While Net Neutrality is a great thing, it's not just going to topple cable and bundles. The issue with cable and satellite and bundles isn't the delivery mechanism, it's the content providers. It doesn't matter whether it's DBS, QAM, IPTV, or OTT-IPTV, the content providers are holding things hostage. There's no technical reason that DirecTV, Comcast, FIOS, U-Verse, etc, couldn't do a-la-carte today if the content providers would allow it.
> 
> What might change TV is actions by a few providers like CableVision, who is trying to fight the force-bundling practices.


I agree that the current state of affairs is as you stated, a result of content providers decisions with cable/satellite going along with them. But we are now starting to see more alternatives which ultimately will rely on an open Internet. The more alternatives that become available the more people that will decide they no longer need the transitional cable model. At some tipping point the cable companies will go after these people themselves with competing alternatives. This is what Dish is starting now with SlingTV which absolutely requires an open Internet. And at some point (perhaps still decades away) the whole bundling system will get blown up and there is even a chance the the "live" TV model will also be blown up for everything except actual live events. There are several wild cards one of the larger ones is advertising. If advertising support for TV/cable channels goes down something is going to have to happen and we may not like it.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

tluxon said:


> How would you feel if your TV bitrate was no longer given priority over all other "bit" traffic on the internet?


I would be completely fine with this since I am assuming we are talking about the cable company is the one providing both the tv and the internet. In this scenario, I will gladly subscribe to a different tv package from amother company that provides the best service regardless of the internet provider I choose. I'm sure this scares that crap out of comcast and TWC.


----------



## tluxon (Feb 28, 2002)

rainwater said:


> I would be completely fine with this since I am assuming we are talking about the cable company is the one providing both the tv and the internet. In this scenario, I will gladly subscribe to a different tv package from amother company that provides the best service regardless of the internet provider I choose. I'm sure this scares that crap out of comcast and TWC.


Why? They just pass their cost increases on to the customer, who often has very little choice to go somewhere else for their service.

We're going to know a lot more in about 5-10 years. I really don't believe they care at all about fairness as much as they care about control - very soon on a global scale. Before you know it, everything anyone posts on the internet will have to pass through a filter - and I'm not talking about a filter on distracting or even debasing entertainment but on whistleblowers of corruption and deceit.

Minority Report and The Matrix series were an announcement - not just someone's fantasy.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

tluxon said:


> Why? They just pass their cost increases on to the customer, who often has very little choice to go somewhere else for their service.
> 
> We're going to know a lot more in about 5-10 years. I really don't believe they care at all about fairness as much as they care about control - very soon on a global scale. Before you know it, everything anyone posts on the internet will have to pass through a filter - and I'm not talking about a filter on distracting or even debasing entertainment but on whistleblowers of corruption and deceit.
> 
> Minority Report and The Matrix series were an announcement - not just someone's fantasy.


ah, but unreasonable rate hikes based on nothing but market control can actually be stopped by the FCC under title 2 regulations. You can complain to the FCC about unreasonable internet rate hikes!


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> ah, but unreasonable rate hikes based on nothing but market control can actually be stopped by the FCC under title 2 regulations. You can complain to the FCC about unreasonable internet rate hikes!


You forgot the sarcasm brackets on that statement, right? You aren't seriously thinking that a five-person politics-dominated committee should govern broadband rates-vs-performance are you? Or do you think government-selected winners and losers are generally a good thing? When the FCC is 3:2 Dems:Republicans (as now) the winners will be consumers (in the short term, until the effects of lack of investment incentive become evident). When Republicans dominate, the milking of consumers by local monopolies will continue. This would be a solution worse than the problem.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

dlfl said:


> .....until the effects of lack of investment incentive become evident). When Republicans dominate, the milking of consumers by local monopolies will continue. This would be a solution worse than the problem.


What investment are you talking about ? I thought there was tons of dark fiber and then they invented a way to send like a thousand times as much data, effectively ending the need for more fiber.

Has something changed ?


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

tluxon said:


> Why? They just pass their cost increases on to the customer, who often has very little choice to go somewhere else for their service.


Again, that is fine with me. There will eventually be competition in the TV space so you will be able to subscribe to tv services from many companies regardless of your internet provider. So they will have to actually start competing on price for at least one part of the equation.

As for internet, the FCC also approved an order that will prevent local governments from blocking municipal broadband. So local broadband companies can now build out fiber without TWC throwing a bunch of money at state politicians to block it. Again, more competition.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> I agree that the current state of affairs is as you stated, a result of content providers decisions with cable/satellite going along with them. But we are now starting to see more alternatives which ultimately will rely on an open Internet. The more alternatives that become available the more people that will decide they no longer need the transitional cable model. At some tipping point the cable companies will go after these people themselves with competing alternatives. This is what Dish is starting now with SlingTV which absolutely requires an open Internet. And at some point (perhaps still decades away) the whole bundling system will get blown up and there is even a chance the the "live" TV model will also be blown up for everything except actual live events. There are several wild cards one of the larger ones is advertising. If advertising support for TV/cable channels goes down something is going to have to happen and we may not like it.


In terms of content that didn't exist before, like Netflix, Amazon Prime, even YouTube, the Open Internet is absolutely positively critical. And if enough eyeballs move enough of their time over to those sources, that could be bad for cable. However, I don't think the content providers will allow their content to go to OTT in a way that directly competes for the same customers MSOs have today. SlingTV is trying to grab customers who wouldn't pay for cable today, but would pay $20/mo for basically ESPN, which is a very narrow niche.

There seems to be no shortage of ads on TV, but for a lot of cable channels, retrans fees bring in far more revenue than the ads do. For the big networks, it's more of a mixed bag.



Grakthis said:


> ah, but unreasonable rate hikes based on nothing but market control can actually be stopped by the FCC under title 2 regulations. You can complain to the FCC about unreasonable internet rate hikes!


Except for the whole part about forbearance of the rate regulation part of title II.



jth tv said:


> What investment are you talking about ? I thought there was tons of dark fiber and then they invented a way to send like a thousand times as much data, effectively ending the need for more fiber.
> 
> Has something changed ?


The last mile is the issue, not the backbone.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

dlfl said:


> .........When the FCC is 3:2 Dems:Republicans (as now) the winners will be consumers (in the short term, until the effects of lack of investment incentive become evident). When Republicans dominate, the milking of consumers by local monopolies will continue. This would be a solution worse than the problem.


Hey at least if Reps dominate they'll grow some balls and do something about the slaughtering of all those innocent people by the terrorists known as ISIS/ISIL!!!!


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> Hey at least if Reps dominate they'll grow some balls and do something about the slaughtering of all those innocent people by the terrorists known as ISIS/ISIL!!!!


You mean the congress we have now, who won't vote on it?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> You mean the congress we have now, who won't vote on it?


Yeah, whatever. We know what what've happened if things were "different" in the White House.

Let's not get more into this here and derail the thread. It's obvious we must have differing views, and that's cool and what makes the USA so damned awesome!


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

dlfl said:


> When Republicans dominate, the milking of consumers by local monopolies will continue.


I think you mean "bilking".


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> But his argument about censorship is BS. Cable channels are not bound by any censorship rules.


Political speech is censored.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

shwru980r said:


> Political speech is censored.


On cable? How so?


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Bigg said:


> While Net Neutrality is a great thing, it's not just going to topple cable and bundles. The issue with cable and satellite and bundles isn't the delivery mechanism, it's the content providers. It doesn't matter whether it's DBS, QAM, IPTV, or OTT-IPTV, the content providers are holding things hostage. There's no technical reason that DirecTV, Comcast, FIOS, U-Verse, etc, couldn't do a-la-carte today if the content providers would allow it.
> 
> What might change TV is actions by a few providers like CableVision, who is trying to fight the force-bundling practices.


While I rarely agree with your usual full-of-yourself opinions, this one hits the mark - the content providers are essentially a cartel that control how everything is bought and packaged. This is slowly changing not only by the MSOs such as Dish coming up with new models but also with net providers such as Netflix and Amazon bypassing the entrenched players completely and rolling their own content.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> ah, but unreasonable rate hikes based on nothing but market control can actually be stopped by the FCC under title 2 regulations. You can complain to the FCC about unreasonable internet rate hikes!


Too bad it doesn't also include the discriminatory cap trials Comcast is running in select markets. IMO, these won't go away until Google Fiber gets to the ATL in the next couple of years.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Considering that Mark Cuban made his $billions by snookering Yahoo into buying broadcast.com which was, wait for it, the incredible idea of sending TV over the Internet, and I'm convined to this day he has no idea how it works,....

I'm sure he has no idea that Cable companies don't provide TV over IP, like say, broadcast.com was supspoed to do.

Companies that do sent TV over IP, like UVerse still don't mix the Internet service with the TV service.

Mark Cuban should keep his mouth shut to avoid verifying that he is a fool.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

MikeAndrews said:


> Considering that Mark Cuban made his $billions by snookering Yahoo into buying broadcast.com which was, wait for it, the incredible idea of sending TV over the Internet, and I'm convined to this day he has no idea how it works,.... I'm sure he has no idea that Cable companies don't provide TV over IP, like say, broadcast.com was supspoed to do. Companies that do sent TV over IP, like UVerse still don't mix the Internet service with the TV service. Mark Cuban should keep his mouth shut to avoid verifying that he is a fool.


Yeah, so foolish that he's smart enough to make boatloads of cash! Wish I could be that foolish


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Whats is it called when you watch House of Cards via netflix?

Is it not TV over IP?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Bigg said:


> In terms of content that didn't exist before, like Netflix, Amazon Prime, even YouTube, the Open Internet is absolutely positively critical. And if enough eyeballs move enough of their time over to those sources, that could be bad for cable. However, I don't think the content providers will allow their content to go to OTT in a way that directly competes for the same customers MSOs have today. SlingTV is trying to grab customers who wouldn't pay for cable today, but would pay $20/mo for basically ESPN, which is a very narrow niche.
> 
> There seems to be no shortage of ads on TV, but for a lot of cable channels, retrans fees bring in far more revenue than the ads do. For the big networks, it's more of a mixed bag. ...


It isn't the number of adds it's the revenue. There are only so many marketing dollars I have seen several articles over the last few years predicting there will be a shift away from TV to the Internet - which makes sense as the younger market is what most advertisers are going after. Over the last 6-10 years the broadcast networks have delt with revenue via re-transmission fees, not sure how much farther they can push that and everyone has increased the number of adds over time to also deal with revenue issues. Like I said I have seen several articles that indicate revenue has/is topping out and may decline.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of SlingTV's actual service it is in response to cable/satellite not being able to get a group of people to buy into cable/satellite service and one of the many reasons the people being targeted by SlingTV don't feel they need cable/satellite is OTT content. So the chipping away of traditional cable/satellite has already started. The next push may come from Frontier, if they are really going to push an OTA & OTT solution via a TiVo Roamio as an alternative to cable/satellite to their Internet customers. That is a a pretty big deal as it will be the first time people will be told through marketing that they should drop cable/satellite.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Whats is it called when you watch House of Cards via netflix?
> 
> Is it not TV over IP?


Yes. That is. When you watch HBO it isn't.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

jsmeeker said:


> Whats is it called when you watch House of Cards via netflix?
> 
> Is it not TV over IP?


Depends. If you are watching it on a TV, then it is TV over IP. If you are watching it on some other device like a laptop or a tablet, then it's just streaming internet video.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

MikeAndrews said:


> Yes. That is. When you watch HBO it isn't.


what if you use the HBO Go app?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> While I rarely agree with your usual full-of-yourself opinions, this one hits the mark - the content providers are essentially a cartel that control how everything is bought and packaged. This is slowly changing not only by the MSOs such as Dish coming up with new models but also with net providers such as Netflix and Amazon bypassing the entrenched players completely and rolling their own content.


 Yeah, I think original content is a more important factor in leading to cable's decline than trying to break the existing content out of the cartel model.



atmuscarella said:


> It isn't the number of adds it's the revenue. There are only so many marketing dollars I have seen several articles over the last few years predicting there will be a shift away from TV to the Internet - which makes sense as the younger market is what most advertisers are going after. Over the last 6-10 years the broadcast networks have delt with revenue via re-transmission fees, not sure how much farther they can push that and everyone has increased the number of adds over time to also deal with revenue issues. Like I said I have seen several articles that indicate revenue has/is topping out and may decline.


Right. And retrans fees keep going up and up and up.



> Regardless of what anyone thinks of SlingTV's actual service it is in response to cable/satellite not being able to get a group of people to buy into cable/satellite service and one of the many reasons the people being targeted by SlingTV don't feel they need cable/satellite is OTT content. So the chipping away of traditional cable/satellite has already started. The next push may come from Frontier, if they are really going to push an OTA & OTT solution via a TiVo Roamio as an alternative to cable/satellite to their Internet customers. That is a a pretty big deal as it will be the first time people will be told through marketing that they should drop cable/satellite.


SlingTV is targeting a very, very narrow niche. Most people who don't have cable don't want it in any form, and aren't going to pay for even cable-lite.

I can't figure out what the heck Frontier is doing. If they push OTT/OTA, they will be directly competing with their own pay-TV business as a pay-TV MSO with U-Verse and FIOS. That makes no freaking sense.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> what if you use the HBO Go app?


Then you are streaming HBO content, you are not watching the HBO channel.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> Yeah, so foolish that he's smart enough to make boatloads of cash! Wish I could be that foolish


He made lots of money, but the company he sold fell apart very quickly so much so that is basically became worthless. So I'm not sure what type of respect he deserves when it comes to his knowledge of these issues.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

rainwater said:


> He made lots of money, but the company he sold fell apart very quickly so much so that is basically became worthless. So I'm not sure what type of respect he deserves when it comes to his knowledge of these issues.


It's better to be lucky than good.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

rainwater said:


> He made lots of money, but the company he sold fell apart very quickly so much so that is basically became worthless. So I'm not sure what type of respect he deserves when it comes to his knowledge of these issues.


 Yeah, it fell apart AFTER he sold it! What does that tell you?


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Yeah, it fell apart AFTER he sold it! What does that tell you?


He knows how to sell off bad assets?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> Yeah, it fell apart AFTER he sold it! What does that tell you?


That he is willing to enrich himself by scamming naive people?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Diana Collins said:


> He knows how to sell off bad assets?





tarheelblue32 said:


> That he is willing to enrich himself by scamming naive people?


Oh, and here I thought the saying was "buyer beware", guess not.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> Oh, and here I thought the saying was "buyer beware", guess not.


Yes, the saying is indeed "buyer beware". It means that the buyer must be aware of the fact that there are less than scrupulous people around which will take advantage of them, and that they may have no recourse should they be taken advantage by such. It certainly does not mean that dishonest behavior is moral or that it is excusable in mercantile transactions.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> Oh, and here I thought the saying was "buyer beware", guess not.


Yeah, you're right. If I take advantage of other people to put some money in my pocket then it's their own damn fault. To hell with them.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

ej42137 said:


> Yes, the saying is indeed "buyer beware". It means that the buyer must be aware of the fact that there are less than scrupulous people around which will take advantage of them, and that they may have no recourse should they be taken advantage by such. It certainly does not mean that dishonest behavior is moral or that it is excusable in mercantile transactions.





tarheelblue32 said:


> Yeah, you're right. If I take advantage of other people to put some money in my pocket then it's their own damn fault. To hell with them.


You know that's not what the meaning of what I'm saying is. These COMPANIES (not individual people!) that he sold to aren't some bunch of hapless morons. If they're too ignorant to do their due diligence and research before such a large investment, then I think it most certainly IS on them.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

MikeAndrews said:


> Yes. That is. When you watch HBO it isn't.


If you have ATT Uverse then everthing is TV over IP. Eventually cable will work the same way.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> If you have ATT Uverse then everthing is TV over IP. Eventually cable will work the same way.


Hard for me to see cable already installed on the street going away anytime soon, has great bandwidth and can't be overloaded if everybody is watching one channel (like the super bowl) and provides great internet/phone service. It will be a sad day when I can't record as many programs as I have tuners for (ATT U-Verse has a limit of 2 to 4 HD channels at one time) cable has no such limit (except maybe systems using a tuner adapter, don't know about that)


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

lessd said:


> It will be a sad day when I can't record as many programs as I have tuners for (ATT U-Verse has a limit of 2 to 4 HD channels at one time) cable has no such limit (except maybe systems using a tuner adapter, don't know about that)


There is some limit on the number of different SDV channels that could be viewed or recorded within a particular neighborhood at the same time. What that actual limit is, I don't know. I would guess somewhere around 15 to 25.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> Hard for me to see cable already installed on the street going away anytime soon, has great bandwidth and can't be overloaded if everybody is watching one channel (like the super bowl) and provides great internet/phone service. It will be a sad day when I can't record as many programs as I have tuners for (ATT U-Verse has a limit of 2 to 4 HD channels at one time) cable has no such limit (except maybe systems using a tuner adapter, don't know about that)


They're already doing something like this with SDV. SDV basically works the same as IP, in that it only allocates bandwidth for a channel when it's actually needed. The only real difference is that they're using standard QAM frequencies with a switching hub similar to what they use for VOD rather then packetized IP data.

There are a couple of advantages to them switching to real IP instead of SDV or leaner QAM. First off is that QAM wastes bandwidth. Each QAM frequency can handle about 38Mbps of data. So you have to figure out how to fit your channels into that block. If you use a QAM for 3 HD channels that only require 12Mbps then you're only using 36Mbps and the other 2Mbps is getting wasted. Multiplied over 130 QAMs and it adds up. With IP they would bond all the frequencies into a single big pipe and then transmit everything along that one fat pipe. That's where the second advantage comes in. With current QAM multiplexing an 800Mhz system has about 5Gbps of bandwidth available. With DOCSIS 3.1, which uses a different type of multiplexing, they can get 8Gbps from the same system. That's a 60% increase for "free".

Also you need to understand that just because it's IP it doesn't mean that every user on your node watching the Superbowl is getting their own stream. They can use multicast IP to deliver a single linear channel to multiple homes, just like they do now. As long as the stream is live, and not specific to the user like VOD or a recording from a cloud DVR, then it can be broadcast to multiple homes simultaneously just like they do now.

The reason ATT sucks so bad is because their technology can only support 45Mbps to each home. So even tough their streams are only 6Mbps they can only stream 6 channels at a time while still leaving enough left over for a usable internet connection. With cable they could basically offer you a full 8Gbps to your home, so there would be no such issue.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

tarheelblue32 said:


> There is some limit on the number of different SDV channels that could be viewed or recorded within a particular neighborhood at the same time. What that actual limit is, I don't know. I would guess somewhere around 15 to 25.


There actually isn't. The only limit is the number of frequencies they dedicate to SDV. There is nothing that would prevent them from converting the entire system to SDV if they wanted. In fact in some TWC areas essentially all channels are SDV. (except a handful of super popular channels)

What can happen is that if they use say a block of 15 frequencies for say 30 rarely watched channels and everyone on your node decides to watch a different one of those channels, then as soon as the 15 frequencies are used up the other 15 channels will be unavailable. The likelihood of that happening is very low. Nodes are typically pretty small and SDV is typically only used for channels which aren't very popular.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> There actually isn't. The only limit is the number of frequencies they dedicate to SDV. There is nothing that would prevent them from converting the entire system to SDV if they wanted. In fact in some TWC areas essentially all channels are SDV. (except a handful of super popular channels)
> 
> What can happen is that if they use say a block of 15 frequencies for say 30 rarely watched channels and everyone on your node decides to watch a different one of those channels, then as soon as the 15 frequencies are used up the other 15 channels will be unavailable. The likelihood of that happening is very low. Nodes are typically pretty small and SDV is typically only used for channels which aren't very popular.


Right, I didn't really mean a theoretical limit, but the actual limit that currently exists on most cable systems given the set of frequencies they devote to SDV. Though, theoretically, even if they converted their entire ~1GHz of usable frequencies to SDV, there would still be a limit of the number of simultaneous SDV channels that could be watched (or recorded) on a given node, though that number could be greater than the number of tuners in operation within that node.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Though, theoretically, even if they converted their entire ~1GHz of usable frequencies to SDV, there would still be a limit of the number of simultaneous SDV channels that could be watched (or recorded) on a given node, *though that number could be greater than the number of tuners in operation within that node.*


That's where TWC is with some of their systems I think. They've converted a large enough chunk of their channels to SDV that no one node could ever watch them all simultaneously and as such they can use more of the frequency for internet and VOD.

SDV is basically a lower tech version of IP. But I think the bandwidth gains from switching to DOCSIS 3.1 will eventually win out and we'll see a shift to real IP. Especially once DLNA CVP-2 starts getting wide spread support.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> You know that's not what the meaning of what I'm saying is. These COMPANIES (not individual people!) that he sold to aren't some bunch of hapless morons. If they're too ignorant to do their due diligence and research before such a large investment, then I think it most certainly IS on them.


So what you're saying is that if it's a large amount of money, and a lot of people are in the organization, it's morally okay to cheat them. Or are you saying it's okay to cheat stupid people?

"Buyer beware" does not excuse the seller from moral culpability due to their bad behavior, it merely provides a warning as to limits of recourse for the buyer.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

ej42137 said:


> So what you're saying is that if it's a large amount of money, and a lot of people are in the organization, it's morally okay to cheat them. Or are you saying it's okay to cheat stupid people? "Buyer beware" does not excuse the seller from moral culpability due to their bad behavior, it merely provides a warning as to limits of recourse for the buyer.


Whatever, I'm taking about the ignorance of the buyer, not the immorality of the seller......sheesh.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> On cable? How so?


Outside of FOX News there aren't many conservative political viewpoints. Also many shows that express liberal viewpoints receive very low ratings, but are still kept on the air.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> Outside of FOX News there aren't many conservative political viewpoints.


On Fios, currently, there are Fox, One America News, and Newsmax. On the other side, just MSNBC. (No, CNN is not liberal, and hasn't been for a long time. Broadcast networks neither.)



> _Also many shows that express liberal viewpoints receive very low ratings, but are still kept on the air._


It would be more true to say that of conservative outlets. The liberal ones (e.g. Air America) get shut down after a while, or sometimes, they're shut down even when they're successful (e.g. Phil Donahue, Keith Olbermann), for offending their corporate employers.

And MSNBC is supposedly going less liberal as we speak -- they just dumped Joy Reid and Ronan Farrow in favor of the insipid Thomas Roberts, and are said to be planning a much more "mainstream" schedule. Really, MSNBC is better understood as corporate (= conservative, pretty much) rather than "liberal" -- pandering temporarily to what they saw as an available niche, but without the kind of ideological commitment that a Roger Ailes gives to Fox. (It's worth noting that MSNBC runs mostly the same kind of ads as Fox, from the American Petroleum Institute on down to Fred Thompson peddling reverse mortgages.)


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

To comment on the last few posts:

The FCC/Government does not in any way regulate/restrict cable channels from having talk shows that promote or refute political opinions. If you don't believe that just put your tinfoil hat on and go hide under your bed. 

There are basically 3 entities that determine what content is on a cable channel, (1) the owners of the cable channel, (2) the advertisers, & (3) indirectly the viewers. Of course there are some government restrictions on illegal and/or indecent material (like child porn), but that is not what is being talked about. 

From my point of view, anything called news should be verified facts and not tainted with opinions. The problem I see is there is very little news being provided on so called news channels, and for some reason many people seem to think that opinions, that may or may not be based on any fact spouted by a bunch of talking heads, are news and relevant. 

When it comes to liberal versus conservative there are 2 broad categories, social and economic. Generally speaking economic conservative views currently means anti regulation, anti tax, & anti union, so by definition most of corporate America is economically conservative. Where corporate America isn't economically conservative is when it comes to wanting regulations that give them an advantage over competitors or wanting government subsidies. What is pretty hard to tell is if corporate America is social liberal or conservative, from what I can tell they tell people whatever they want to hear so that they support corporate America's economic desires.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> Fred Thompson peddling reverse mortgages.)


Hay! what wrong with reverse mortgages as an option for people that need them so they can stay in their home.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

shwru980r said:


> Outside of FOX News there aren't many conservative political viewpoints. Also many shows that express liberal viewpoints receive very low ratings, but are still kept on the air.


That's not censorship by the FCC, which is what Mark Cuban was talking about. Programming choices are made by executives and advertisers.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

lessd said:


> Hay! what wrong with reverse mortgages as an option for people that need them so they can stay in their home.


My comment was not so much about the merits of reverse mortgages, such as they may be, as the pitch -- using Fred Thompson, not just an actor but a former Republican senator and presidential candidate, as well as invoking Reagan in the script, in an attempt to lend credibility to the program. On MSNBC.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> Hard for me to see cable already installed on the street going away anytime soon, has great bandwidth and can't be overloaded if everybody is watching one channel (like the super bowl) and provides great internet/phone service.


That wasn't the point. IP over coax was the point.



Dan203 said:


> There are a couple of advantages to them switching to real IP instead of SDV or leaner QAM. First off is that QAM wastes bandwidth. Each QAM frequency can handle about 38Mbps of data. So you have to figure out how to fit your channels into that block. If you use a QAM for 3 HD channels that only require 12Mbps then you're only using 36Mbps and the other 2Mbps is getting wasted. Multiplied over 130 QAMs and it adds up. With IP they would bond all the frequencies into a single big pipe and then transmit everything along that one fat pipe. That's where the second advantage comes in. With current QAM multiplexing an 800Mhz system has about 5Gbps of bandwidth available. With DOCSIS 3.1, which uses a different type of multiplexing, they can get 8Gbps from the same system. That's a 60% increase for "free".


D3.1 is getting more because of a higher order modulation, not by srunching out wasted bandwidth- those gains are very small. Once you go to SDV, the bandwidth crunch is gone, so getting every last drop of bandwidth out of a system isn't really necessary. As much as I HATE SDV as a TiVo user who luckily doesn't have to deal with it, it is mathematically inevitable. A current 860mhz system with no analog could accommodate about 200 HD's in H.264, 300mbps internet, and all the rest of the stuff that needs to be there. That leaves gigabit internet and 4K out of the picture. In order to accommodate gigabit and 4K, SDV is an inevitability. All equipment out there today can handle SDV, and most can handle H.264, while little or none of it could handle IP, so QAM is going to be around for a long, long time.

I think the bandwidth solution is going to have to be 860mhz plants with MPEG-2 SDs, with channels above expanded basic being SDV'ed, H.264 HDs with ~50-70 linear and another 130-150 on SDV, plus 4K channels on some mix of linear at first and eventually as there are more, some on SDV or IP, and then nice fat allocations for both D3 and D3.1.



> Also you need to understand that just because it's IP it doesn't mean that every user on your node watching the Superbowl is getting their own stream. They can use multicast IP to deliver a single linear channel to multiple homes, just like they do now. As long as the stream is live, and not specific to the user like VOD or a recording from a cloud DVR, then it can be broadcast to multiple homes simultaneously just like they do now.


True, AT&T does it now with IP multicast, but it doesn't buy you anything for networks, ESPN, etc. For lesser watched channels, SDV basically provides the same bandwidth savings with existing hardware. Maybe 4K will get delivered over IP and D3.1, since they will be starting fresh with that hardware...



> The reason ATT sucks so bad is because their technology can only support 45Mbps to each home. So even tough their streams are only 6Mbps they can only stream 6 channels at a time while still leaving enough left over for a usable internet connection. With cable they could basically offer you a full 8Gbps to your home, so there would be no such issue.


A few can get 75mbps, but your point is still correct. Their network is pathetic.



Dan203 said:


> That's where TWC is with some of their systems I think. They've converted a large enough chunk of their channels to SDV that no one node could ever watch them all simultaneously and as such they can use more of the frequency for internet and VOD.


At that point, you're basically delivering directly to boxes, and you have an unlimited "channel" capacity, since it's all based on "streams" to boxes not channels of content.



> SDV is basically a lower tech version of IP. But I think the bandwidth gains from switching to DOCSIS 3.1 will eventually win out and we'll see a shift to real IP. Especially once DLNA CVP-2 starts getting wide spread support.


Yes, for 4K, no for the existing stuff.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

DOCSIS 3.1 uses different modulation. By converting the entire frequency range of an 800Mhz system to DOCSIS 3.1 they could gain about 3Gbps of throughput. You don't think that will be enough to get them to switch to IP eventually?

QAM with SDV is still limited to the bandwidth limitations of QAM modulation, no matter how efficient it is.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> DOCSIS 3.1 uses different modulation. By converting the entire frequency range of an 800Mhz system to DOCSIS 3.1 they could gain about 3Gbps of throughput. You don't think that will be enough to get them to switch to IP eventually?


Maybe long, long term. But for the forseeable future, due to the equipment out there, SD and HD will be on QAM. UHD might use D3.1 in a QoS'ed and shared manner like U-Verse except with an order of magnitude or two more bandwidth. That would be a really sneaky way to offer gigabit internet and UHD and "double dip" on the bandwidth, as you'd be sharing some of the bandwidth with your neighbor watching UHDTV, but hey, I'd be happy with 300mbps even if they're all watching UHDTV.

If they could dynamically share UHD and internet bandwidth via D3.1 and HD/SD and VOD bandwidth via SDV, a future with 400+ SD channels, 200+ HD channels, UHD, gigabit, and everything else co-existing on an 860mhz plant looks very realistic.



> QAM with SDV is still limited to the bandwidth limitations of QAM modulation, no matter how efficient it is.


Right. But with small enough nodes for SDV, it doesn't matter anyway. And SDV can work with H.264 for HD, if desired. Smaller nodes and plant upgrades are an order of magnitude cheaper than new hardware for everyone. The one place that might go all-IP is UHD, since no UHD hardware even exists at this point. There's no reason a box couldn't seamlessly tune UHD channels over D3.1 IP and SD and HD channels via a mixture of SDV and linear H.264 and MPEG-2.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

But you're forgetting that the FCC is requiring that all new hardware support DLNA CVP-2 by June of this year. Once that becomes prolific then switching to a pure IP solution will be trivial. 

I'm not saying it's going to happen in the next year, but if they know it's coming then they might avoid investing in SDV and plan for the eventual shift to pure IP.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> But you're forgetting that the FCC is requiring that all new hardware support DLNA CVP-2 by June of this year. Once that becomes prolific then switching to a pure IP solution will be trivial.
> 
> I'm not saying it's going to happen in the next year, but if they know it's coming then they might avoid investing in SDV and plan for the eventual shift to pure IP.


If cable went to pure IP (DLNA CVP-2) would the Roamio and cable cards be out the window ??


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Romio might be able to handle the switch, depends on the encryption they use. But honestly this is all years away. By the time it happens there will likely be a relacement product from TiVo.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

wmcbrine said:


> On Fios, currently, there are Fox, One America News, and Newsmax. On the other side, just MSNBC. (No, CNN is not liberal, and hasn't been for a long time. Broadcast networks neither.)


False. CNN and the broadcast networks are extremely liberal. Some of the executives and reporters have relatives with prominent positions in the current administration.

It would be more true to say that of conservative outlets. The liberal ones (e.g. Air America) get shut down after a while, or sometimes, they're shut down even when they're successful (e.g. Phil Donahue, Keith Olbermann), for offending their corporate employers.[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant. None of this is censorship.



wmcbrine said:


> And MSNBC is supposedly going less liberal as we speak -- they just dumped Joy Reid and Ronan Farrow in favor of the insipid Thomas Roberts, and are said to be planning a much more "mainstream" schedule. Really, MSNBC is better understood as corporate (= conservative, pretty much) rather than "liberal" -- pandering temporarily to what they saw as an available niche, but without the kind of ideological commitment that a Roger Ailes gives to Fox. (It's worth noting that MSNBC runs mostly the same kind of ads as Fox, from the American Petroleum Institute on down to Fred Thompson peddling reverse mortgages.)


Doesn't change the fact that the ratings are terrible and have been getting worse. They lost half their viewers in the past year. Why would these losers get a second chance, if it wasn't for censorship?

CNN, MSNBC and HLN would be on the air if they weren't bundled with other higher rated channels. The cable companies have to carry these low rated channels to get the other more popular channels.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> That's not censorship by the FCC, which is what Mark Cuban was talking about. Programming choices are made by executives and advertisers.


I disagree. Some of the FCC employees are hired as network executives and some some network employees are hired by various government agencies. Also some network executives have relatives working in high places in the government.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

wmcbrine said:


> My comment was not so much about the merits of reverse mortgages, such as they may be, as the pitch -- using Fred Thompson, not just an actor but a former Republican senator and presidential candidate, as well as invoking Reagan in the script, in an attempt to lend credibility to the program. On MSNBC.


It's irrelevant to this thread, because it has nothing to do with censorship.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> But you're forgetting that the FCC is requiring that all new hardware support DLNA CVP-2 by June of this year. Once that becomes prolific then switching to a pure IP solution will be trivial.
> 
> I'm not saying it's going to happen in the next year, but if they know it's coming then they might avoid investing in SDV and plan for the eventual shift to pure IP.


Or Comcast will ignore the FCC there just like with CableCARD.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

But as I predicted the intentional misunderstanding will continue.



> *The Internet Freedom Act* which proposes doing exactly the opposite.
> My legislation will put the brakes on this FCC overreach and protect our innovators from these job-killing regulations,
> http://consumerist.com/2015/03/05/c...mcast-introduces-bill-to-kill-net-neutrality/


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> False. CNN and the broadcast networks are extremely liberal.


In wingnut world, yes, but not in reality.



> _Irrelevant. None of this is censorship._


There is no censorship. You have to be far out of touch with reality to believe that conservative voices are underrepresented in the media.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

False. CNN and the broadcast networks are extremely liberal. Some of the executives and reporters have relatives with prominent positions in the current administration.[/QUOTE]

CNN is too crappy to even have a bias. They barely report real news and politics, they're usually off of on some crazy story, whether it's sharks, the missing plane, any blonde white girl who went missing or god knows what.

The broadcast channels are not liberal at all. They also don't do a great job at reporting a lot of important stories. The best reporting being done is by the comedy shows, HBO's Vice and Last Week Tonight, and Al Jazeera America.

MSNBC is hardly liberal, they are a party line democratic channel, at least for their top rated shows.



Dan203 said:


> But you're forgetting that the FCC is requiring that all new hardware support DLNA CVP-2 by June of this year. Once that becomes prolific then switching to a pure IP solution will be trivial.
> 
> I'm not saying it's going to happen in the next year, but if they know it's coming then they might avoid investing in SDV and plan for the eventual shift to pure IP.


But there are millions of boxes already out there that don't support it but do support SDV and mostly support H.264. SDV is a trivial upgrade from what they have now, H.264 isn't that hard, IP is a nightmare.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

There are two kinds of news on TV and cable: 

1. Journalistic news that states facts and tries to be unbiased, like Al Jazeera America and BBC News America.

2. Main stream news that is mostly filler and a lot of central viewpoint junk, like NBC, CNN, CBS, etc.

Apart from news, there are entertainment channels like "Fox News" that aren't news, aren't true, and cater to imbeciles, shut-ins and wack-jobs.

If you want comedy that was intended to be comedy, you'd be better off watching the Daily Show or Last Week Tonight, since they report actual facts, and you laugh with them, not at them.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> There are two kinds of news on TV and cable:
> 
> 1. Journalistic news that *states facts and tries to be unbiased, like Al Jazeera America* and BBC News America.......


I worked in Psyops (psychological operations) for many years for the U.S. Government and I have to say, I'm appalled that the USA would allow a station like this to exist here. It's all propaganda to win the hearts and minds of the US population, and unfortunately it's working EXTREMELY well in the weak minded and weak willed.

Since it seems we didn't learn from history, I guess we are just doomed to repeat it. 



Arcady said:


> ......Apart from news, there are entertainment channels like "Fox News" that aren't news, aren't true, and cater to imbeciles, shut-ins and wack-jobs.....


Well, I guess I'm an imbecile, shut-in wack-job that loves my God and my country then.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

I said it "caters to" not that all of the viewers were those things. A few might actually be intelligent, but slightly confused.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> I said it "caters to" not that all of the viewers were those things. A few might actually be intelligent, but slightly confused.


I would say the same thing about the Al Jazeera lovers. How's ISIS workin' for ya?


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

You know that anything with a middle-eastern name is not run by terrorists, right? (As a fox viewer, probably not.)

Did you know your entertainment fake news channel is partially owned by a Saudi Arabian prince?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> You know that anything with a middle-eastern name is not run by terrorists, right? (As a fox viewer, probably not.) Did you know your entertainment fake news channel is partially owned by a Saudi Arabian prince?


Ummmmmm, yeah. I know A LOT more than just that. We will just leave it at that.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I really enjoy TechKnow on Al Jazerra America. It's all about science with hot looking PHDs.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Arcady said:


> Apart from news, there are entertainment channels like "Fox News" that aren't news, aren't true, and cater to imbeciles, shut-ins and wack-jobs.


Fox news has much higher ratings than almost any other news station, must be many imbeciles, shut-ins and wack-jobs in America. The ratings for nut jobs like Rush Limbaugh are also high, although sometimes he does make sense.
What this has to do with TiVo I don't know.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

lessd said:


> Fox news has much higher ratings than almost any other news station


Why is this always the defense?

There is only one TV network that broadcasts that filth. There are at least 20 other sources for news, who have to split the factual news ratings.

More people use cable company DVRs than use TiVos. Does that make cable company DVRs better? (There's your TiVo reference.)

And I'm done with this debate. I might as well try to change someone's religion. It would be just as hard getting a Fox News viewer to admit that Fox News is a bunch of lies.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

zalusky said:


> I really enjoy TechKnow on Al Jazerra America. It's all about science with hot looking PHDs.


Do you enjoy that with a nice cold glass of Kool-Aide?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> Why is this always the defense? There is only one TV network that broadcasts that filth. There are at least 20 other sources for news, who have to split the factual news ratings. More people use cable company DVRs than use TiVos. Does that make cable company DVRs better? (There's your TiVo reference.) And I'm done with this debate. I might as well try to change someone's religion. It would be just as hard getting a Fox News viewer to admit that Fox News is a bunch of lies.


Let's just ask Brian Williams his story on the subject.

So what ISIS/ISIL is doing is all just a "bunch of lies"? I guess you ARE watching too much Al Jazeera. I'm sure there's good real estate deals in Iraq and Syria if you'd like to relocate to escape the "lies".


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> Let's just ask Brian Williams his story on the subject.
> 
> .


Or maybe we could ask Bill O'Reilly as he has been shown to have done nearly the same thing. The big difference is NBC removed Brain Williams and he said he was sorry, where Bill O'Reilly threatened the reporter and Fox said so what. Which does make some sense as Brian Williams was tasked with actually reporting news based on facts obtained through research and Bill O'Reilly's job, as an editorially commentator, is to push a political opinion, which doesn't require any research or real facts.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I really enjoy TechKnow on Al Jazerra America. It's all about science with hot looking PHDs.


:up:


----------



## namwoljr (Aug 8, 2014)

Holy S#!t, people...why does every thread about the FCC and net neutrality on every forum I frequent turn into right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal, Fox News vs. MSNBC bile spewing.

Here's a news flash: nobody cares about your entrenched, unchangeable political beliefs. How about we wait and see what the actual details are before we start saying Obama is killing the internet


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

namwoljr said:


> Holy S#!t, people...why does every thread about the FCC and net neutrality on every forum I frequent turn into right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal, Fox News vs. MSNBC bile spewing.


BECAUSE the Intentional FUD is that "neutrality" means "equal time" or content control by the guvmint, and WE KNOW THAT MEANS DAT DOSE LIBRULS WILL BLOCK DUH TRUT FROM FauxRushnnnnnnn!


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> Or maybe we could ask Bill O'Reilly as he has been shown to have done nearly the same thing. The big difference is NBC removed Brain Williams and he said he was sorry, where Bill O'Reilly threatened the reporter and Fox said so what. Which does make some sense as Brian Williams was tasked with actually reporting news based on facts obtained through research and Bill O'Reilly's job, as an editorially commentator, is to push a political opinion, which doesn't require any research or real facts.


Bill O'Reilly did not do what Brain Williams did, I don't think Bill O'Reilly did anything but get caught up in the sewer of the internet where anybody can say anything true or otherwise and if you like what someone says you repeat it without checking for the real truth, but I think Brain Williams got screwed as what he did, was not to change or lie about the worlds facts about what was happing in Iraqi, who cares what chopper was shot down in Iraqi as so many were.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

namwoljr said:


> Holy S#!t, people...why does every thread about the FCC and net neutrality on every forum I frequent turn into right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal, Fox News vs. MSNBC bile spewing.
> 
> Here's a news flash: nobody cares about your entrenched, unchangeable political beliefs. How about we wait and see what the actual details are before we start saying Obama is killing the internet


Because increasing or decreasing regulatory control over commerce and freedom is typically a right vs left thing. When in doubt, I always favor the approach that offers less regulation. There is a time and place for more government control and regulation - I am not so sure the internet is the place for that.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I agree with what you say, and many times, less is more. But hasn't it started to feel so often, nowadays, that "the little guy" has no voice and control and that only money and those with it do, and that some control is needed to put a check on this and keep avenues open?


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

The little guy is who changed the FCC's mind about net neutrality. Before the public comment period, the chairman at the FCC was against it. The comments and dialog that came from the public response changed his mind. It's actually kind of a miracle.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

You're right, and it does happen. Although not as much as it should. Rules sometimes are needed to protect us from, well, ourselves. The basic existence of the FCC being an example, perhaps.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

The big change in the way the Internet functions, impartially and freely by design, was about to be imposed by the big corporate players. Most end users wanted the Internet to continue as it has been.

The FCC stepped in and established a regulatory presence which will have the immediate effect of preventing that change. Hooray! In many ways a Conservative view would applaud that immediate result. Unfortunately the FCC is now positioned as a big fat ugly beast likely to crap all over the Internet someday in ways only a bureaucratic genius mentality can devise. Too bad for all of us.


----------



## Big-Art (Feb 24, 2015)

I find all this very interesting every person here has no clue what they are talking about including me. The fact is WE will find out what this means just like Obama Care after the final reg is Passed and Accecpted. Oh wait we still do not know what the rules for Obama care are as he keeps changing them as he goes along. 

NET NEUTRALITY MEANS ONLY ONE THING GOVERNMENT CONTROL

GOVERNMENT DOES EVERYTHING POORLY IF THE GOV HAD CONTROL OF THE NET IN THE 80'S & 90'S WE WOULD STILL BE USING DIAL-UP.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!​


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

You can always spot crazy people when they start changing fonts and sizes...


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Funny, but I just don't envision the horribles of net neutrality and government's encroaching into the Internet--rather, I see the government simply saying, Internet access should not be premised on wealth. It's a value judgment, in my mind, not a sudden system of controls that are going to be imposed.


----------



## Big-Art (Feb 24, 2015)

Arcady said:


> You can always spot crazy people when they start changing fonts and sizes...


First off I'm kinda new to this forum thing so just trying out the controls.

Next Not Crazy  Just pointing out a simple fact. Why are the new regulations still not available for the public to read.


----------



## Big-Art (Feb 24, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> Funny, but I just don't envision the horribles of net neutrality and government's encroaching into the Internet--rather, I see the government simply saying, Internet access should not be premised on wealth. It's a value judgment, in my mind, not a sudden system of controls that are going to be imposed.


I honestly hope you are right however why all the secrecy. All regulations should be publicly available for review before they are passed. Yet as of today we are still in the dark as to what these new rules say.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Big government is not that much different from big business especially when there is only a couple of them who control the pipes. The only difference is I at least get to vote for government. I dont always have a choice when it comes to BIG business. We used to be able to select our ISPs for cable until cable said no more of that. 

I so remember acoustic modems because the phone companies said you cannot connect your wires to our wires. Who put a stop to that nonsense and allowed us to get here.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

I see an analogy between net neutrality and highway/road neutrality. What's also funny is the same nuts who call net neutrality government control of the Internet would be the first people screaming bloody murder if there were tolls placed on every road, highway, and bridge for people whose vehicles cost less than $100,000.

[sarcasm]And while we're at it, why should people in $100,000+ cars have to stop at red lights if they don't want to? It's just more evil government control trying to tell them what to do![/sarcasm]


----------



## namwoljr (Aug 8, 2014)

daveak said:


> Because increasing or decreasing regulatory control over commerce and freedom is typically a right vs left thing. When in doubt, I always favor the approach that offers less regulation. There is a time and place for more government control and regulation - I am not so sure the internet is the place for that.


I would agree with you 100% if ISPs didn't have regional monopolies that actively try to thwart competition, such as lobbying state legislatures to pass bills banning municipal broadband. If there was true competition in the ISP realm, much of this "discussion" would be moot. Unregulated monopolies are never a good thing.


----------



## Big-Art (Feb 24, 2015)

series5orpremier said:


> I see an analogy between net neutrality and highway/road neutrality. What's also funny is the same nuts who call net neutrality government control of the Internet would be the first people screaming bloody 0murder if there were tolls placed on every road, highway, and bridge for people whose vehicles cost less than $100,000.
> 
> [sarcasm]And while we're at it, why should people in $100,000+ cars have to stop at red lights if they don't want to? It's just more evil government control trying to tell them what to do![/sarcasm]


I Love toll roads so long as the tolls go to the actual road. I use I 80/90 in Ohio several times a year and it is much better than 94 /96 /75 here in Michigan.

My car is old enough to drink legaly and drinks a lot of gas. I firmly support paying for what you get. Evrey one should be able to access the internet and the rates should be fair. However I should have options. Should everyone be required to have the one size fits all internet or should I have the option to buy the bandwidth I want?


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Big-Art said:


> Next Not Crazy  Just pointing out a simple fact.


I think your definition of the word 'fact' is different than mine.


----------



## Big-Art (Feb 24, 2015)

rainwater said:


> I think your definition of the word 'fact' is different than mine.


Please Amplify


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Big-Art said:


> Should everyone be required to have the one size fits all internet or should I have the option to buy the bandwidth I want?


What deludes you into thinking net neutrality means one choice of bandwidth that is a lower amount than is currently available? Don't answer that - I already know the answer. If you want the most bandwidth for the money and access to all websites at a bandwidth that allows them to compete fairly for your business with all other websites, then you'd be in favor of net neutrality. Net neutrality doesn't take away current physical capacity; it just promotes competition by preventing physical capacity from being throttled.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

namwoljr said:


> I would agree with you 100% if ISPs didn't have regional monopolies that actively try to thwart competition, such as lobbying state legislatures to pass bills banning municipal broadband. If there was true competition in the ISP realm, much of this "discussion" would be moot. Unregulated monopolies are never a good thing.


That is the whole thing - phone service use to be provided by legal monopolies. That system was changed and look what we have today. It does seem the the internet is on the way to being controlled by a few monopolies - and that would stifle competition and development. However, keeping proposed rule changes essentially secret during deliberations smacks of an attempted fait accomplis.

Sometimes the government has to intervene to open the market when it has become monopolistic. However, I am not convinced we are there yet - I would agree that we are well on the road to internet monopolies that can set and dictate higher prices (and in some areas of the nation, I think this is becoming true).

What concerns me is the FCC - allowing them to dictate terms allows the government more control. Can we trust our government to further regulate the internet and yet keep it free and open? When they don't even have an open process for the proposed regulations?


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

series5orpremier said:


> What deludes you into thinking net neutrality means one choice of bandwidth that is a lower amount than is currently available? Don't answer that - I already know the answer. If you want the most bandwidth for the money and access to all websites at a bandwidth that allows them to compete fairly for your business with all other websites, then you'd be in favor of net neutrality. Net neutrality doesn't take away current physical capacity; it just prevents it from being throttled which results in stifled competition.


But it seems to me that it would prevent you from being able to pay additional money for guaranteed bandwidth so your business can operate the way you need it to. If I am an internet video company and I need to purchase bandwidth to make sure my clients get good service and video, I do not think I could do that with the new rules. Then all my clients suffer and my business model is damaged.

Net neutrality seems fair on first look - and the idea that we all have equal access is great. However, will we then end up in sharing increased costs? Or will we be charged for bits and bytes used - all of us having a metered rate and we all pay the same for each gig?

Be nice to see the proposed changes. Why does it need to be shielded from public view?


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

The amount of bandwidth you buy from your ISP has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Arcady said:


> The amount of bandwidth you buy from your ISP has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.


The 'better service' that Netflix is paying for in some markets does indirectly effect my rates. If Comcast can charge heavy users more to build out their network, then they don't need to (but will if they can) charge me more. My future rates will be impacted one way or another - depending on how the FCC rules.

It seems to me that Net Neutrality also means that if the internet gets slow, it gets slow for everyone. And it prevents people and businesses from paying additional money to make sure it does not get slow for them. Money that could then be used to build additional infrastructure that can benefit us all. It seems the Net Neutrality takes away investment incentives from the ISPs and/or the companies that need larger bandwidth. If no amount of money guarantees better access and service, then why pay any additional money? Then who pays?


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Well, history shows that with a lack of competition ISPs and cable companies will take the price premium windfalls and pocket them rather than invest in more infrastructure and better service.

I think NN could result in higher rates for everyone but also a faster better product. If a big customer is demanding faster service the entire infrastructure will have to be improved to provide that capacity to everyone.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Big-Fart wrote

I find all this very interesting every person here has no clue what they are talking about including me. The fact is WE will find out what this means just like Obama Care after the final reg is Passed and Accecpted. Oh wait we still do not know what the rules for Obama care are as he keeps changing them as he goes along. 

NET NEUTRALITY MEANS ONLY ONE THING GOVERNMENT CONTROL

GOVERNMENT DOES EVERYTHING POORLY IF THE GOV HAD CONTROL OF THE NET IN THE 80'S & 90'S WE WOULD STILL BE USING DIAL-UP.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!​[/QUOTE]

Oh the ill informed newbie can figure out font sizes.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

daveak said:


> If Comcast can charge heavy users more to build out their network, then they don't need to (but will if they can) charge me more.


Not if we have net neutrality. It prevents thugs like Comcast from charging extra to heavy users like Netflix, and prevents them from putting everyone else in a slow lane.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lessd said:


> Bill O'Reilly did not do what Brain Williams did, I don't think Bill O'Reilly did anything but get caught up in the sewer of the internet where anybody can say anything true or otherwise and if you like what someone says you repeat it without checking for the real truth, but I think Brain Williams got screwed as what he did, was not to change or lie about the worlds facts about what was happing in Iraqi, who cares what chopper was shot down in Iraqi as so many were.


Actually they both did something very close basically after the fact over embellishment of their actual experiences. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/bill-oreilly-falklands-video-cbs While I will agree that David Corn in Liberal, he is not some unknown Internet blogger. I do agree that the actual over embellishment that both Brain Williams & Bill O'Reilly did is irrelevant. How each reacted when called out is a little more telling.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Arcady said:


> Not if we have net neutrality. It prevents thugs like Comcast from charging extra to heavy users like Netflix, and prevents them from putting everyone else in a slow lane.


If Comcast cannot charge extra to heavy users to keep their network running well, then they will need to raise everyone's rates to provide the capital they need to build infrastructure - or everything begins to slow a little and peak user times become bandwidth restricted. The money has to come from somewhere. If not them, then all of us.

I do not think the new rules will have any cap on the rates you and I pay, and no floor on the bandwidth provided. I like the idea of equal access, but I don't think it will protect my rates or my level of service from getting worse.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

If Comcast is selling me 105Mbps internet, then they already need to provide it. Artificially capping Netflix bandwidth to force them into paying extra is a just a money grab.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

daveak said:


> The 'better service' that Netflix is paying for in some markets does indirectly effect my rates. If Comcast can charge heavy users more to build out their network, then they don't need to (but will if they can) charge me more. My future rates will be impacted one way or another - depending on how the FCC rules.
> 
> It seems to me that Net Neutrality also means that if the internet gets slow, it gets slow for everyone. And it prevents people and businesses from paying additional money to make sure it does not get slow for them. Money that could then be used to build additional infrastructure that can benefit us all. It seems the Net Neutrality takes away investment incentives from the ISPs and/or the companies that need larger bandwidth. If no amount of money guarantees better access and service, then why pay any additional money? Then who pays?


Net Neutrality as currently being proposed doesn't restrict ISPs from selling end users (personal or business) faster service or selling service based on the amount of data used the same is true on the other end Net Neutrality doesn't stop ISPs from selling faster access for web servers or from selling service based on the amount of traffic a site has.

As currently being proposed all that Net Neutrality is trying to do is stop end users (us) ISP's from deciding which web sites we can access and to stop end users ISP's from intentionally slowing access (below the users current service speeds) to select web sites that the ISP decides they want to limit access to, for what ever reason.

What Netflix had to end up paying for was to stop certain ISPs from intentionally degrading their customers (us) access to Netfix's web site. Netflix already paid their ISP to provide Internet access to their web servers. If your or my ISP provides us with say a 25Mbps service with a 300GB/mo data cap it should not matter to them if we get 300 GB of data from Netflix or if we get 300GB from 1000's of other sites.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Big-Art said:


> Just pointing out a simple fact.


But your "fact" is actually just FUD.

Government isn't taking over the internet. They're imposing simple rules that prevent ISPs from using their nearly monopolistic positions as the last leg between the internet and their customers as a way to extort money and hinder competition.

Absolute worst case scenario is that this causes prices to go up and/or bandwidth to be metered rather then unlimited. It's not going to hinder innovation and it's not going to stop progress. In fact all these regulations do is force ISPs to keep doing things exactly as they have been doing them for the last 20 years.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

atmuscarella said:


> Net Neutrality as currently being proposed doesn't restrict ISPs from selling end users (personal or business) faster service or selling service based on the amount of data used the same is true on the other end Net Neutrality doesn't stop ISPs from selling faster access for web servers or from selling service based on the amount of traffic a site has.
> 
> As currently being proposed all that Net Neutrality is trying to do is stop end users (us) ISP's from deciding which web sites we can access and to stop end users ISP's from intentionally slowing access (below the users current service speeds) to select web sites that the ISP decides they want to limit access to, for what ever reason.
> 
> What Netflix had to end up paying for was to stop certain ISPs from intentionally degrading their customers (us) access to Netfix's web site. Netflix already paid their ISP to provide Internet access to their web servers.


So groups like Netflix will still be able to pay for a 'better tier' so they can provide the service they need? Or they won't have to pay the extra money any more and the ISPs will be forced to accommodate them without the extra revenue from them?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Arcady said:


> If Comcast is selling me 105Mbps internet, then they already need to provide it. Artificially capping Netflix bandwidth to force them into paying extra is a just a money grab.


:up::up:


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

ISPs won't be allowed to throttle their speed and extort money from them, as Comcast did to Netflix.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Arcady said:


> The little guy is who changed the FCC's mind about net neutrality. Before the public comment period, the chairman at the FCC was against it. The comments and dialog that came from the public response changed his mind. It's actually kind of a miracle.


He seriously said it was because of John Oliver's bit comparing him with hiring a dingo as a baby sitter.

Not only was it Satire FTW, that show was carried on the very providers who were fighting net neutrality, although HBO might have been more in favor with HBO GO than they'd admit to the cablecos.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

So during peak times without further investment in infrastructure, everything slows for everybody. Well, it's fair. Not optimum, but fair.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

daveak said:


> So groups like Netflix will still be able to pay for a 'better tier' so they can provide the service they need? Or they won't have to pay the extra money any more and the ISPs will be forced to accommodate them without the extra revenue from them?


Yes and no, anyone with a web server can pay their ISP for the amount of bandwidth they want. Most professional sites pay for enough so it is not a limiting factor (but it could be).

Your and my ISP will have to treat data requested from Netflix just like data requested from any other web site. If your or my ISP can not provide their customers with the access they sold them then everyone's data gets slowed down not just the people trying to access data from web sites other than Netflix.

The issue many people have is their ISPs over sells their service and can not maintain anything near the service level being sold during many hours of the day when demand is highest. My ISP does that now, they know it and basically don't care.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

daveak said:


> So groups like Netflix will still be able to pay for a 'better tier' so they can provide the service they need? Or they won't have to pay the extra money any more and the ISPs will be forced to accommodate them without the extra revenue from them?


Until we see the actual rules we wont know for sure. But it's apparently not going to prevent them from making deals with services like Netflix to install a server inside their network and then charging them for it. However it will prevent them from intentionally throttling services like Netflix in an effort to force them to do it. If a service like Netflix decides it's in their best interest to pay for a server like that they they can make a deal with the ISPs. If not then their traffic will come across the internet as fast as possible to the user with no interference from the ISP.

The reason these sorts of deals are in Netflix's best interest is because it allows them to install servers closer to their customers, which reduces latency and increases stability of the connection. It also saves them from paying for bandwidth to send the traffic over the broad internet. However their packets are still not favored over any other service. They're paying for the advantage of being a little closer to the end user, but their packets aren't given any sort of priority over packets coming from other services.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

The telephone system has always been under the SAME Title 9 GOVERNMENT CONTROL. You heard of people having problems saying anything on the phone?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> Actually they both did something very close basically after the fact over embellishment of their actual experiences. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/bill-oreilly-falklands-video-cbs While I will agree that David Corn in Liberal, he is not some unknown Internet blogger. I do agree that the actual over embellishment that both Brain Williams & Bill O'Reilly did is irrelevant. How each reacted when called out is a little more telling.


Peoples recollections from over 30 years ago may or may not be clouded, there are conflicting accounts of what happen VIA Bill, but as you said who should care, Bill O'Reilly also stood up for Brain Williams as do I. Mountains and mole hill comes to mind. All of these shows should get the facts that matter correct, if they make themselves more important with a little fib, that a problem for their employer not us.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Credibility matters. Especially with information sources.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Arcady said:


> Why is this always the defense?
> 
> There is only one TV network that broadcasts that filth. There are at least 20 other sources for news, who have to split the factual news ratings.
> 
> ...


Since only one channel is carrying the filth, that must be censorship. My point all along.

The other low rated sources are sold to the cable company bundled with higher rated programming. The cable company has no choice but to purchase the low rated news programming to get the other higher rated programming. But you don't have an issue with it.

On the other hand the cable company tries to bundle their DVRs in the same manner the low rated new programming is bundled. It's much more difficult to use a Tivo, and yet you are outraged at this behavior.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

wmcbrine said:


> In wingnut world, yes, but not in reality.
> 
> There is no censorship. You have to be far out of touch with reality to believe that conservative voices are underrepresented in the media.


Interesting that you chose to respond with ad hominem attacks and display your intolerance.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

But we're still talking about two different things. Mark's assertion was that since video is digital and the FCC censors video that these rules somehow mean that they're going to start censoring the internet. 

That's completely false. First of the ONLY video that the FCC censors is OTA video. Cable may be indirectly censored by the channels and ad buyers, but there are no FCC regulations in place to censor cable. They can show whatever they want on cable. So his whole premiss was flawed.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> Since only one channel is carrying the filth, that must be censorship. My point all along.


Depends on what you mean by censorship. In a political setting when someone talks about censorship they are talking about the Government doing it. The Government is not censoring what cable TV broadcasts beyond compliance with laws governing illegal material (ex. child porn). The FCC does impose greater censorship rules on OTA broadcast station however political content is not part of what is being censored and OTA stations are free to broadcast content with any political point of view the owners want and advertisers are willing to support.

In general non-political terms all content broadcast on a cable channel is subject to the possibility of non-governmental censorship. There really is no way to eliminate that possibility as the owners of each channel are free to broadcast or not broadcast pretty much anything they want to. But that has nothing to do with the FCC or any possible net neutrality rules.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Arcady said:


> There are two kinds of news on TV and cable:
> 
> 1. Journalistic news that states facts and tries to be unbiased, like Al Jazeera America and BBC News America.
> 
> ...


That's a pretty good description. I noticed you omitted MSNBC. They are harder to categorize, as they have a lot of good reporting, but through a very party-line democratic lens.



lessd said:


> Fox news has much higher ratings than almost any other news station, must be many imbeciles, shut-ins and wack-jobs in America. The ratings for nut jobs like Rush Limbaugh are also high, although sometimes he does make sense.
> What this has to do with TiVo I don't know.


Unfortunately, there are a lot of wack-jobs out there.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Arcady said:


> The little guy is who changed the FCC's mind about net neutrality. Before the public comment period, the chairman at the FCC was against it. The comments and dialog that came from the public response changed his mind. It's actually kind of a miracle.


Nail hit on head, one of the rare cases where monied interests have been overruled by the common folk riled up enough to give a crap about what happens.

This often happens with the net and little else.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> That's a pretty good description. I noticed you omitted MSNBC. They are harder to categorize, as they have a lot of good reporting, but through a very party-line democratic lens.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are a lot of wack-jobs out there.


Because you don't like/agree with something (like Fox news) does not mean all that do like/agree with that channel are wack-jobs. There are many countries around the word that suppress the news they don't like, and many of those countries jail the so called wack-jobs. Freedom in the USA does has it downside until you consider the alterative.
You should not call people that don't go/think your way wack-jobs.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

lessd said:


> Because you don't like/agree with something (like Fox news) does not mean all that do like/agree with that channel are wack-jobs. There are many countries around the word that suppress the news they don't like, and many of those countries jail the so called wack-jobs. Freedom in the USA does has it downside until you consider the alterative.
> You should not call people that don't go/think your way wack-jobs.


Are you trying to suppress the freedom to call somebody a whack job!


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> Nail hit on head, one of the rare cases where monied interests have been overruled by the common folk riled up enough to give a crap about what happens.
> 
> This often happens with the net and little else.


It occurred to me that Wheeler may have literally had no idea about the issues and opposition with Net Neutrality until the John Oliver story, and then the avalanche of comments. He wasn't going to hear the other side from the lobbyists and staff members he gets his information from.

When the President spoke up, that helped cement the Title 9 decision.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

The FCC will most certainly interpret net neutrality in the same impartial manner that they interpreted the requirement to create a level playing field for third party set top box manufacturers. 

Is their any other company besides Tivo that sells a third party set top box anymore? Most Tivo subscriptions are now from Tivo manufactured MSO boxes and only a small percentage are retail set top boxes.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

shwru980r said:


> Is their any other company besides Tivo that sells a third party set top box anymore?


Yes, there are a bunch. TiVo is just the most popular.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

zalusky said:


> Are you trying to suppress the freedom to call somebody a whack job!


There are lots of words that freedom does not give you the option of publicly using (the *N* word, the *F* word and many more), you and others can decide if calling someone you don't know a whack job is acceptable.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Arcady said:


> Yes, there are a bunch. TiVo is just the most popular.


Less than a million Tivo owned subscriptions out of 49 million cable subscriptions. Real popular.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

shwru980r said:


> Less than a million Tivo owned subscriptions out of 49 million cable subscriptions. Real popular.


Of retail set top boxes.

DUH.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> Less than a million Tivo owned subscriptions out of 49 million cable subscriptions. Real popular.


Except that TiVo is not a content producer/provider like the cable companies--it is a recorder and re-transmitter of what others provide, different from at least some of what cable does. My issue with so-called cable-cutting and how some people simplistically approach and discuss it, acting like the cable companies really don't provide much--depending on the cable, people are losing access to real content, absent being able to find it elsewhere and otherwise. TiVo, as a general matter, does not = cable.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

lessd said:


> There are lots of words that freedom does not give you the option of publicly using (the *N* word, the *F* word and many more), you and others can decide if calling someone you don't know a whack job is acceptable.


Well when Bill O'Rielly calls Jon Stewarts audience a bunch of stoned slackers and he does not know them. I am assuming whack job is acceptable based upon stuff I see them say on the air.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

zalusky said:


> I am assuming whack job is acceptable based upon stuff I see them say on the air.


^ +1. And throw a bunch of U.S. Congresspersons in for good measure.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> Because you don't like/agree with something (like Fox news) does not mean all that do like/agree with that channel are wack-jobs. There are many countries around the word that suppress the news they don't like, and many of those countries jail the so called wack-jobs. Freedom in the USA does has it downside until you consider the alterative.
> You should not call people that don't go/think your way wack-jobs.


No. You completely missed the point there. MSNBC, while slanted into a party-line democratic position most of the time, and occasionally a liberal point of view, still does legitimate journalism, reporting real facts on real stories. Fox News often just makes **** up, which is why they end up on the comedy shows so often.

The most vocal part of the right are whack-jobs, because they spew all sort of vitriolic nonsense that is often factually inaccurate to support extreme right-wing positions which often contradict themselves. I'm sick of the false equivalency BS, and the inability of many people, most often on the far right-wing to be able to have an intelligent discussion about what the government is, what it does, what it's role in society is, and who pays for it. There is a difference between actual little c governmental conservatives, the right-wing talk show/ Republican Party Conservative bible-banging, gun-toting, hypocrite wack-jobs, and finally the Wall Street Republicans, who are three different and distinct groups.

I also did not say that the government should suppress the rights of whack-jobs to free speech. Whack-jobs have 1st amendment rights too, but it doesn't make them no whack-jobs.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> No. You completely missed the point there. MSNBC, while slanted into a party-line democratic position most of the time, and occasionally a liberal point of view, still does legitimate journalism, reporting real facts on real stories. Fox News often just makes **** up, which is why they end up on the comedy shows so often.
> 
> The most vocal part of the right are whack-jobs, because they spew all sort of vitriolic nonsense that is often factually inaccurate to support extreme right-wing positions which often contradict themselves. I'm sick of the false equivalency BS, and the inability of many people, most often on the far right-wing to be able to have an intelligent discussion about what the government is, what it does, what it's role in society is, and who pays for it. There is a difference between actual little c governmental conservatives, the right-wing talk show/ Republican Party Conservative bible-banging, gun-toting, hypocrite wack-jobs, and finally the Wall Street Republicans, who are three different and distinct groups.
> 
> I also did not say that the government should suppress the rights of whack-jobs to free speech. Whack-jobs have 1st amendment rights too, but it doesn't make them no whack-jobs.


There are for certain whack-jobs out there, but not all conservatives are whack-jobs as all people that watch Fox news are not whack-jobs, and* all *news reported by Fox is not made up, and some news by say NBC is made up.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

lessd said:


> There are for certain whack-jobs out there, but not all conservatives are whack-jobs as all people that watch Fox news are not whack-jobs, and* all *news reported by Fox is not made up, and some news by say NBC is made up.


That is an accurate set of statements.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> There are for certain whack-jobs out there, but not all conservatives are whack-jobs as all people that watch Fox news are not whack-jobs, and* all *news reported by Fox is not made up, and some news by say NBC is made up.


Again, you're trying to use the BS false equivalency, which is just plain wrong. NBC and Fox News are in no way equivalent. Fox News is not a news source, NBC is. Unfortunately, some people mistake Fox News for such.

I see right through your BS.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Again, you're trying to use the BS false equivalency, which is just plain wrong. NBC and Fox News are in no way equivalent. Fox News is not a news source, NBC is. Unfortunately, some people mistake Fox News for such.


It is quite accurate to say in describing a box of cracked glass fragments containing some small % of diamonds that not all pieces in the box are cracked glass. It may even be accurate to say also that in a much larger box of diamonds containing 0.1% zircons there are likely some zircons in that box. I don't see the equivalency you charge at all.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Again, you're trying to use the BS false equivalency, which is just plain wrong. NBC and Fox News are in no way equivalent. Fox News is not a news source, NBC is. Unfortunately, some people mistake Fox News for such.
> 
> I see right through your BS.


OK so you have a hate for Fox news, that your BS, I don't care if you never watch it, I only pointed out that the ratings of Fox news is higher than any other TV news station. All the people that do watch Fox news (and I never said I watched Fox news) are not watching a non news sight, to say Fox news *never* has legitimate news on their station is stupid of anybody, especially a smart person like you, you don't fight their view point by calling out all people that do watch Fox news stupid, or whack jobs because you think it not news.
The O'Reilly Factor is stated as opinion or commentary on a particular subject area, not necessary hard news, but that show (I sure it drives you nuts) the O'Reilly Factor is the most watched cable news program in the United States. (from Wikipedia) If you think such a big number of these people are all whack job let me give you the Definition of whack jobs *Someone who is crazy and/or has lost their mind and acts like a damn lunatic. Someone you should avoid at all costs *
You should not try to spread your religion to people you don't know (but this country does gives you the freedom to do so)


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

The problem with Fox News having high ratings is that people are misinformed.

They did a survey where they asked a series of news and political questions to several types of people. Some watched NBC/CBS/ABC. Some watched the Daily Show or Colbert. Some watched Fox News. Some watched none of the above. The people that watched nothing answered correctly more often than the Fox viewers. The Daily Show viewers answered correctly more than that.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

lessd said:


> OK so you have a hate for Fox news, that your BS, I don't care if you never watch it, I only pointed out that the ratings of Fox news is higher than any other TV news station. All the people that do watch Fox news (and I never said I watched Fox news) are not watching a non news sight, to say Fox news never has legitimate news on their station is stupid of anybody, especially a smart person like you, you don't fight their view point by calling out all people that do watch Fox news stupid, or whack jobs because you think it not news. The O'Reilly Factor is stated as opinion or commentary on a particular subject area, not necessary hard news, but that show (I sure it drives you nuts) the O'Reilly Factor is the most watched cable news program in the United States. (from Wikipedia) If you think such a big number of these people are all whack job let me give you the Definition of whack jobs Someone who is crazy and/or has lost their mind and acts like a damn lunatic. Someone you should avoid at all costs You should not try to spread your religion to people you don't know (but this country does gives you the freedom to do so)


Don't even bother fighting lessd. He's proving the only "whack job" around here is the one he sees in the mirror every day. Just let him keep digging the proof of that deeper with every word he types.

"Better to be thought the fool, than to open your mouth and prove it" (in this case, type it)


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> The problem with Fox News having high ratings is that people are misinformed. They did a survey where they asked a series of news and political questions to several types of people. Some watched NBC/CBS/ABC. Some watched the Daily Show or Colbert. Some watched Fox News. Some watched none of the above. The people that watched nothing answered correctly more often than the Fox viewers. The Daily Show viewers answered correctly more than that.


That's because they blindly drink the Kool Aid being served. Truth is relative.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> That's because they blindly drink the Kool Aid being served. Truth is relative.


What is that supposed to mean? Truth is truth. I think you need a doctor if you believe fiction is truth.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Oh My! If anyone doesn't understand why Congress can't agree on anything, and why most politicians talk the way they do, just review the last page or two of this thread.  They act that way because they actually do represent us and we are divided.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

And people vote based on the lies they watch on TV.

That's why you get people standing in front of the capital with signs that say things like "take your government hands off my medicare" and other genius statements.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> What is that supposed to mean? Truth is truth. I think you need a doctor if you believe fiction is truth.


What one person believes is truth, another believes to be false. Ask Hitler.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> What one person believes is truth, another believes to be false. Ask Hitler.


That many people believe, for example, the Obama is a Muslim spy is truth. You can't function as an involved citizen without recognizing and respecting that truth. It won't go away by ridicule, posting rants against it, stamping your feet. John McCain did more for America in effectively addressing that, in 10 seconds, than a million liberals dancing on the head of a pin.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Wil said:


> That many people believe, for example, the Obama is a Muslim spy is truth. You can't function as an involved citizen without recognizing and respecting that truth. It won't go away by ridicule, posting rants against it, stamping your feet. John McCain did more for America in effectively addressing that, in 10 seconds, than a million liberals dancing on the head of a pin.


Well, don't know if I'd go THAT far, but OK, this is America after all, haha!


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Very little is actually black and white in life and when it comes to politics almost everything is grey simply because it is nearly impossible to 100% prove or disprove almost everything. The reality is most people will choose what to believe based on their own bias and belief system. We will accept the "facts" that support our beliefs and reject the ones that don't. Add to that, that it is impossible to know the unknown and is pretty easy to see why their are such varied opinions on what the "truth" is. 

A good example of this in today's news is Clinton's email issues. It will be nearly 100% impossible for Clinton to prove she turned over all Official emails to the Government and it is nearly 100% impossible for anyone to prove she didn't. So everything we hear from the talking heads beyond the fact that she used private email for Official Government business is nothing but opinion. 

The issues I have with the news media is when they present their opinions as being actual news and/or when they present their opinions in away that some/many people believe they are being presented facts not opinions. I understand if they actual just reported verifiable facts and stopped with that the news would only take a few minutes and be pretty boring. But that is what I wish we got. 

It's not that I don't like watching people debate and attempt to show why their point of view is correct, it's just that I like to be by people that have first hand knowledge. In my opinion the best role for news outlets is to fact check the stuff that the people directly involved with "whatever" are saying, but again I guess the general public really isn't that interested in the details.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

atmuscarella said:


> ......... The issues I have with the news media is when they present their opinions as actual news and when they present their opinions in away that some/many people believe they are being presented facts not opinions. I understand if they actual just reported verifiable facts and stopped with that the news would only take a few minutes and be pretty boring. But that is what I wish we got......


Well, take it like the religion debate. I personally believe in Jesus Christ, so in my mind and heart "He is the Truth, the Light and the Way" and if I report as such, then it is TRUTH to me and many others, NOT opinion!

Not to mention the current genocide that's happening to ANYONE that's not Muslim by ISIS/ISIL all around the globe and which the majority of the sheeple in the USA, including its leader, choose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore it, spewing some false "truth" that's it's not what it really is......hate and genocide, the same as has happened with the Nazis and many other "thought to be truth" societies.

In the minds of the radical terrorists, their beliefs are truth. Wouldn't it totally suck if they turned out to be correct?  My "truth" says they're not.



atmuscarella said:


> .....It's not that I don't like watching people debate and attempt to show why their point of view is correct,* it's just that I like to be by people that have first hand knowledge.* In my opinion the best role for news outlets is to fact check the stuff that the people directly involved with "whatever" are saying, but again I guess the general public really isn't that interested in the details.


Oh, you mean like Brian Williams then?


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Little kids believe there is a Santa Claus.

Doesn't make it the truth.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> Little kids believe there is a Santa Claus. Doesn't make it the truth.


Oh dear Lord, that says a lot about you. So sorry.

Read Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" if you dare or care.

After that totally ignorant post, I am officially out of this discussion. I'd do better debating with a brick wall.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

You're the one that compared my post to belief in Jesus. I never mentioned Jesus. You made that connection on your own.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> Well, take it like the religion debate. I personally believe in Jesus Christ, so in my mind and heart "He is the Truth, the Light and the Way" and if I report as such, then it is TRUTH to me and many others, NOT opinion!


I think you are mincing words. Just because someone has a personal "truth" that doesn't change a belief (opinion) to a fact. Facts are verifiable and what our news media should be primarily broadcasting on "news" programs is verified facts not opinions or beliefs. Opinions/beliefs should stay on opinion or analysis programs and there should be no confusion between the 2.



HarperVision said:


> Not to mention the current genocide that's happening to ANYONE that's not Muslim by ISIS/ISIL all around the globe and which the majority of the sheeple in the USA, including its leader, choose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore it, spewing some false "truth" that's it's not what it really is......hate and genocide, the same as has happened with the Nazis and many other "thought to be truth" societies.
> 
> In the minds of the radical terrorists, their beliefs are truth. Wouldn't it totally suck if they turned out to be correct?  My "truth" says they're not.


In my opinion our Government should take actions based on what a person or group does. I can not believe anyone in our Government believes ISIS/ISIL action's are acceptable and that it isn't in our Government's best interest to assure they are stopped/eliminated. The only debate I see is how to do that.

I am not a mind reader so I have no idea what ISIS/ISIL believes or if there is even a truly common belief shared by all those involved. From my point of view they are a bunch of scum willing to commit atrocities, not much different that tens of thousands of others past and present. In my life there have been many groups who have butchered literally millions of people in many cases the US did little or nothing to stopped them. In this case I think it is clearly in our best interests to stop/eliminate them. The only real question is how.



HarperVision said:


> Oh, you mean like Brian Williams then?


Brian Williams embellished a personal experience. If it constitutes lying or not depends on if he did it intentionally and/or new he was doing when he did it (my guess is he did but I have no way of knowing). But it goes to my point that the news media should be involved with reporting verifiable facts and not telling stories based on someones opinions or fantasies.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

God exists or God does not exist. You can't do anything about it. We should focus on what we can do in the world and leave God out of it. If God does exist he would not have an ego and would not be bothered if did not acknowledge his/her existence and will save non believers as well.

I am more impressed by non-believers that practice things that better mankind because they don't expect any sort of reward other than the betterment itself.

Do I believe myself? It's just not important to worry about!


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

This is becoming typical of religious debates. It is going the end quickly because the believers will loose the debate, cry foul and claim insult when reason and science will trump over their belief system.

Thats why I stay out of it, it always ends up the same.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

foghorn2 said:


> This is becoming typical of religious debates. It is going the end quickly because the believers will loose the debate, cry foul and claim insult when reason and science will trump over their belief system. Thats why I stay out of it, it always ends up the same.


Actually that's what's funny. The more science is done, the more it proves it, so keep towing the company line they're feeding you and wallow in ignorance. Knowledge is power. Get some. Read the book I mentioned, it'll open eyes.

Oh and it's "lose", not "loose".


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> keep towing the company line ... Oh and it's "lose", not "loose".


And it's "toe" not "tow."


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Wil said:


> And it's "toe" not "tow."


 Haha ok.

PS - Good catch, thanks! I'm usually the one that's good at being the grammar police 

http://grammartips.homestead.com/toetheline.html


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Read the book I mentioned, it'll open eyes.


The Strobel book? Are you kidding? It's a good read for those already on board, clearly written and fairly well-organized. But:

1. Strobel already knew "his" answer.
2. He found a bunch of others who shared this opinion and asked "What is the answer?"
3. He asked this bunch "What do you think of these [weak, straw men] arguments against our true answer?"

That said, it is a quality book in many respects; I have highly recommended it to believers who FEEL the belief but have trouble expressing their belief in a cogent, meaningful way.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Wil said:


> The Strobel book? Are you kidding? It's a good read for those already on board, clearly written and fairly well-organized. But: 1. Strobel already knew "his" answer. 2. He found a bunch of others who shared this opinion and asked "What is the answer?" 3. He asked this bunch "What do you think of these [weak, straw men] arguments against our true answer?" That said, it is a quality book in many respects; I have highly recommended it to believers who FEEL the belief but have trouble expressing their belief in a cogent, meaningful way.


Ummmmm, no. The whole reason he became a Christian was due to the research he did. His wife became one of "those Christians" and started going to church and then he noticed the pronounced change in her so that got his curiosity up and since he was a lawyer he decided to investigate it like any case to be tried in court. He admits he was shocked at the outcome.

He interviewed many people from scientists to atheists, agnostics, etc so not sure where you even get the "bunch of others who shared his opinion" from???


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Most people don't grow up without religion, read a book, then get to decide if they want to join a religion.

Most people are brainwashed by their own family from birth to believe that stuff, or recruited by the church if they somehow grew up without it.

Part of every religion is recruiting more people to brainwash. Take their money and send them out to find more people. It's a pyramid scheme that has been going on for thousands of years.

No thanks.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Ummmmm, no. The whole reason he became a Christian was due to the research he did.


You mentioned the book "The Case for Christ." That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

And now back to, "Net Neutrality is the end of TV as you know it - Mark Cuban"--I read that at the top of this thread.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Wil said:


> You mentioned the book "The Case for Christ." That's what I'm talking about.


Yes, that's what I am talking about too. What part didn't you understand?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> Most people don't grow up without religion, read a book, then get to decide if they want to join a religion. Most people are brainwashed by their own family from birth to believe that stuff, or recruited by the church if they somehow grew up without it. Part of every religion is recruiting more people to brainwash. Take their money and send them out to find more people. It's a pyramid scheme that has been going on for thousands of years. No thanks.


Now THAT is funny! What's the matter, did mommy not hug you enough when you were little?


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> What part didn't you understand?


Your complete mischaracterization of the book itself (which has no such opposing interviews, only weak straw men summaries for his panel of believers to knock down) and the timeline of its writing (Strobel was already a Christian pastor by that time; his mind made up).

It's a fine book as tracts go, as I stated. You should read it sometime.

EDITED TO ADD: Strobel says he did some earlier investigating and I'd like to believe it. It's fine for you to say that he did that. But if we're talking about the book, The Case For Christ, you are way off base in describing that.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Wil said:


> Your complete mischaracterization of the book itself (which has no such opposing interviews, only weak straw men summaries for his panel of believers to knock down) and the timeline of its writing (Strobel was already a Christian pastor by that time; his mind made up). It's a fine book as tracts go, as I stated. You should read it sometime. EDITED TO ADD: Strobel says he did some earlier investigating and I'd like to believe it. It's fine for you to say that he did that. But if we're talking about the book, The Case For Christ, you are way off base in describing that.


I just saw an interview with him which contradicts what you are saying and backs what I know to be the case. Whatever, agree to disagree. I guess we will all know in the end. 

Edit: _"After investigating the evidence for Jesus, Lee became a Christian in 1981."_

From here, his own website: http://www.leestrobel.com/Bio.php


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> _"After investigating the evidence for Jesus, Lee became a Christian in 1981."_


And the book was published ... when? Proceed, Director.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Wil said:


> And the book was published ... when? Proceed, Director.


But the book was based on his "investigation" which in turn converted him to a Christian. What's your point?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

I'm done here. God Bless you all.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

Arcady said:


> The problem with Fox News having high ratings is that people are misinformed.
> 
> They did a survey where they asked a series of news and political questions to several types of people. Some watched NBC/CBS/ABC. Some watched the Daily Show or Colbert. Some watched Fox News. Some watched none of the above. The people that watched nothing answered correctly more often than the Fox viewers. The Daily Show viewers answered correctly more than that.


Who did this survey? The Daily Show? Any of the countless news organizations that get trounced in the ratings by FNC? Surveys are as skewed as news.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

sangs said:


> Who did this survey? The Daily Show? Any of the countless news organizations that get trounced in the ratings by FNC? Surveys are as skewed as news.


Your correct as one must look at who did do the survey, do they benefit from the outcome ? and who answers the phone and spends time talking for these surveys.??


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Arcady said:


> The problem with Fox News having high ratings is that people are misinformed.
> 
> They did a survey where they asked a series of news and political questions to several types of people. Some watched NBC/CBS/ABC. Some watched the Daily Show or Colbert. Some watched Fox News. Some watched none of the above. The people that watched nothing answered correctly more often than the Fox viewers. The Daily Show viewers answered correctly more than that.


That's pretty interesting. It's 100% not surprising, but still interesting that someone actually went out there to prove what everyone suspected all along. In one way, it's kind of sad that the comedy shows are often digging into important issues more than the real news, but in another way, it's good that someone is doing it. Look at John Oliver and Net Neutrality.



HarperVision said:


> Don't even bother fighting lessd. He's proving the only "whack job" around here is the one he sees in the mirror every day. Just let him keep digging the proof of that deeper with every word he types.


Quite true. He has well proven that.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Arcady said:


> That's why you get people standing in front of the capital with signs that say things like "take your government hands off my medicare" and other genius statements.






atmuscarella said:


> Very little is actually black and white in life and when it comes to politics almost everything is grey simply because it is nearly impossible to 100% prove or disprove almost everything.


No. That's not true at all. Some things are very black and white, some things are light grey, and some things are dark grey. Economic systems are light grey. Economists look at data all the time, and often come to different conclusions, but there are also certain trends and data that you cannot ignore.

However, there are many facts that the media often presents as a debate, much to the detriment of the American people's knowledge of what is going on in the world. There is no debate about literal creationism vs. Darwinism. We as mankind know humans have been around for about 200 kya, and that we are the result of evolution. There is no debate about vaccines, there is widespread consensus in study after study about their efficacy and safety. And by far the biggest of them all, climate change. There is no legitimate debate about humans causing climate change and it's hugely detrimental effects. Yet the media continually drums up a "debate" about topics like this that are factually known.

Then there are moral judgements, like is abortion acceptable? That's a moral judgement, but at the same time there are facts surrounding abortion. The morning after pill or any other contraception doesn't cause abortion. And then you get supposed conservatives who think that the government should interfere with a woman's right to choose, yet claim they are conservatives, but that's just a lack of understanding of what government is, or what conservatism is. The list goes on with supposed conservatives who espouse all sorts of ideas that are highly hypocritical.



atmuscarella said:


> In my opinion our Government should take actions based on what a person or group does. I can not believe anyone in our Government believes ISIS/ISIL action's are acceptable and that it isn't in our Government's best interest to assure they are stopped/eliminated. The only debate I see is how to do that.


That's a question of whether the US should be the world police. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of that issue, that's a very dark grey issue. However, our pattern over the last 2-3 decades is completely indefensible for either side of that debate, as we have a totally inconsistent policy on whether we are the world police or not. If we shouldn't be the world police, then why did we go into The Persian Gulf War? Afghanistan? Iraq? If we are the world police, where was a deployment of hundred of thousands of US troops and thousands of US assets deployed to help the victims of genocide in Rwanda? Sudan? The civil war in Liberia? Oh sorry, I forgot that they don't have oil in those areas (although Sudan has some in other parts of the country).


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Bigg said:


> There is no legitimate debate about humans causing climate change and it's hugely detrimental effects.


But, but, it snowed yesterday, so global warming must be a hoax!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> .........However, there are many facts that the media often presents as a debate, much to the detriment of the American people's knowledge of what is going on in the world. There is no debate about literal creationism vs. Darwinism. We as mankind know humans have been around for about 200 kya, and that we are the result of evolution. There is no debate about vaccines, there is widespread consensus in study after study about their efficacy and safety. And by far the biggest of them all, climate change. There is no legitimate debate about humans causing climate change and it's hugely detrimental effects. Yet the media continually drums up a "debate" about topics like this that are factually known.........


I know I attempted to bow out of this ever growing ridiculously ignorant thread, but I had to pop back in here only to laugh my frickin butt off at the above uninformed, ignorant comment that's being made because of the brain numbing Kool Aid that the poster must've drank from his "reliable science" sources!

You do know that people throughout the ages used to believe everything the "experts" told them back then too, right? Like the world is flat, the universe revolved around the Earth, etc., etc.? It was fact I tell ya, FACT! Puh-leeeeze!


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> You do know that people throughout the ages used to believe everything the "experts" told them back then too, right? Like the world is flat, the universe revolved around the Earth, etc., etc.?


No, the church suppressed or killed the scientists who said things like "the Earth is round" or "the Earth revolves around the Sun." People believed what they were told by the fake news media back then: the church.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> No, the church suppressed or killed the scientists who said things like "the Earth is round" or "the Earth revolves around the Sun." People believed what they were told by the fake news media back then: the church.


Hey, no one said that ALL organized groups by ANY humans don't have their selected "bad apples", but seriously???


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Jesus was crucified by an organized religion that He was opposed to based on how they operated and what they became. That should tell you all you need to know about the argument you're trying to make. I agree with you about the greed and misinformation that comes out of ANY groups that are made up by human beings and get too big for their own common sense and morality to contain. No one is arguing that here.

You're actually making my point because the government, scientific institutions, the health system (big pharma, Health insurance, etc.) are the ones serving the Kool aid that you're all sucking down with an orange wedge!


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Then why do conservatives keep voting in support of health insurance companies and big pharma? They are the opposite of what's done in every other developed country.

People say all this stuff, then vote for the complete opposite, because of religion or because they always voted for that party, or because they are racists. It's just annoying.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> Jesus was crucified by an organized religion that He was opposed to based on how they operated and what they became.


Since when were the Romans considered an organized religion?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

bigpuma said:


> Since when were the Romans considered an organized religion?


The Jewish Leaders are the ones that asked Pontius Pilate to try Him for His teachings, claiming He is the Messiah and blasphemy of the Jewish religion. The last thing he wanted was a Jewish uprising on his hands, so he conceded.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> Then why do conservatives keep voting in support of health insurance companies and big pharma? They are the opposite of what's done in every other developed country. People say all this stuff, then vote for the complete opposite, because of religion or because they always voted for that party, or because they are racists. It's just annoying.


To line their pockets $$$!

I agree, it's pretty much because humans are greedy and gullible and don't have a mind of their own to really think things through and do the investigative work themselves. Instead they just believe everything they're told on TV. All the news outlets aren't even news anymore, so debating it is fruitless really. I just choose to watch Fox because to me they seem to be the only ones that have some real compassion and passion and seem to have some of the core values of the old Patriotic USA that I want this country to come back to.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

All these capitalized pronouns are really obnoxious. It's like watching Harry Potter and the wizards are all afraid to say someone's name and call him "He that shall not be named" or whatever.

BTW, that's fiction too.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Bigg said:


> ...
> No. That's not true at all. Some things are very black and white, some things are light grey, and some things are dark grey. Economic systems are light grey. Economists look at data all the time, and often come to different conclusions, but there are also certain trends and data that you cannot ignore.


Yes in the world over all there are many facts. I hoped that was clear as reporting verifiable facts is what I believe the actual news media should be doing. However in politics most stuff is grey. A good example is Net Neutrality, while I have a strong opinion on what the FCC's rules mean and will do, there is still the fact that I may not know some key important piece of information and then there always is the law of unintentional consequences. To go a little further, reporting that the FCC has approved Net Neutrality rules is a verifiable fact and news. Report that Joe Blow said these rules will result in X is not a verifiable fact and is not news and belongs either in an opinion program or an analysis program not a news program.



Bigg said:


> ...
> However, there are many facts that the media often presents as a debate, much to the detriment of the American people's knowledge of what is going on in the world. There is no debate about literal creationism vs. Darwinism. We as mankind know humans have been around for about 200 kya, and that we are the result of evolution. There is no debate about vaccines, there is widespread consensus in study after study about their efficacy and safety. And by far the biggest of them all, climate change. There is no legitimate debate about humans causing climate change and it's hugely detrimental effects. Yet the media continually drums up a "debate" about topics like this that are factually known.


There are certainly many things that a medical/scientific facts, which have a near 100% certainty that they will remain facts and as is. However there are also many medical/scientific theories which are accepted as fact now that can change (or be modified) if new information becomes available. Climate change is an good example, Climate change is a scientific fact - it can be measured and verified. What causes climate change (including Human activity) are scientific theories. How general specific actions will generally effect climate change are also likely scientific theories (example reducing CO2 omissions will slow global warming). However how detail actions will specifically effect climate change don't meet the requirements of a scientific theory and are really just scientific hypothesis (example if the world cuts CO2 omissions by X% the global temperature will be X degrees warmer/cooler in X years). There in lies the political grey, (what actions should we be taking).



Bigg said:


> Then there are moral judgements, like is abortion acceptable? That's a moral judgement, but at the same time there are facts surrounding abortion. The morning after pill or any other contraception doesn't cause abortion. And then you get supposed conservatives who think that the government should interfere with a woman's right to choose, yet claim they are conservatives, but that's just a lack of understanding of what government is, or what conservatism is. The list goes on with supposed conservatives who espouse all sorts of ideas that are highly hypocritical.


Yes hypocritical sums it up.



Bigg said:


> That's a question of whether the US should be the world police. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of that issue, that's a very dark grey issue. However, our pattern over the last 2-3 decades is completely indefensible for either side of that debate, as we have a totally inconsistent policy on whether we are the world police or not. If we shouldn't be the world police, then why did we go into The Persian Gulf War? Afghanistan? Iraq? If we are the world police, where was a deployment of hundred of thousands of US troops and thousands of US assets deployed to help the victims of genocide in Rwanda? Sudan? The civil war in Liberia? Oh sorry, I forgot that they don't have oil in those areas (although Sudan has some in other parts of the country).


What is in our best interest and what if any are our moral obligations are really very grey areas. I am sure I don't really have enough information to know what the best answers are and that the answer will very from place to place. It is my belief that over all our Government works hard to try and make the world a better place and that is in our best Interests. The grey is what actions to take and when.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> All these capitalized pronouns are really obnoxious. It's like watching Harry Potter and the wizards are all afraid to say someone's name and call him "He that shall not be named" or whatever.
> 
> BTW, that's fiction too.


Sorry, but that's the way it's supposed to be done, at least if you're a believer of that "fictional" story.

I'll say some prayers for you though! I wonder if you'll have the same opinion if you happen to get terminal cancer or something and you're on your deathbed?


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> I'll say some prayers for you though! I wonder if you'll have the same opinion if you happen to get terminal cancer or something and you're on your deathbed?


I'm not offended by people saying prayers for me.

I do not live my life as an insurance policy as to where I will be sent after I die. Rather than using fear of punishment, I choose to be moral on my own, without any reward for doing so.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> I'm not offended by people saying prayers for me.
> 
> I do not live my life as an insurance policy as to where I will be sent after I die. Rather than using fear of punishment, I choose to be moral on my own, without any reward for doing so.


I'm sorry you feel that way because it's much, much more than what you summarized and your thoughts on it. It's not about "punishment". That is a distorted view by certain denominations and Old Testament teachings. Once again, these are things that happened due to a bunch of confused humans, not the real Jesus and what He stood for.

Read "The Case for Christ" and "Letters from a Skeptic" to change your perspective on what you "think" it's all about.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

The fact that there are a lot of different versions of it is part of why I don't want anything to do with any of it.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

After I die, I hope the people who remembered me throw a party. Just like the Klingons.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> I'm sorry you feel that way because it's much, much more than what you summarized and your thoughts on it. It's not about "punishment". That is a distorted view by certain denominations and Old Testament teachings. Once again, these are things that happened due to a bunch of confused humans, not the real Jesus and what He stood for.
> 
> Read "The Case for Christ" and "Letters from a Skeptic" to change your perspective on what you "think" it's all about.


It doesn't matter. What matters is what you do. You don't need religion to define morality. Morality is about improving everyone's opportunities.

The religions that exist today are successful because they have developed techniques to keep their faithful and procreate additional believers. They are in effect a living organism sociologically. My problem is they do not encourage you to decide on issues as an individual. There is a strong group think to them.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

zalusky said:


> It doesn't matter. What matters is what you do. You don't need religion to define morality. Morality is about improving everyone's opportunities. The religions that exist today are successful because they have developed techniques to keep their faithful and procreate additional believers. They are in effect a living organism sociologically. My problem is they do not encourage you to decide on issues as an individual. There is a strong group think to them.


Gee, thanks for the enlightenment.


----------



## buscuitboy (Aug 8, 2005)

sangs said:


> Who did this survey? The Daily Show? Any of the countless news organizations that get trounced in the ratings by FNC? Surveys are as skewed as news.


All I know is all this internet nonsense created by possible government regulations and my (Comcast) cable company pulling shenanigans over the years led me to lower my bill in more "creative" ways. Now, I basically have MORE content than before at a lower price. The following is my configuration:


regular local TV and (25Mbs) internet from Comcast
Shared Netflix account (4 screen allowance) with friends/family
Shared Hulu Plus account with friends/family
Shared HBOGO account for my Roku
Shared Amazon Prime account
ESPN on my Xbox360 via a family member login
Shared Showtime Anytime account for my Roku
Shared Xfinity account for ALL other free OnDemand programming (accessed via app on phones/tablets)

All for the low price of about $85/month


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

buscuitboy said:


> All I know is all this internet nonsense created by possible government regulations and my (Comcast) cable company pulling shenanigans over the years led me to lower my bill in more "creative" ways. Now, I basically have MORE content than before at a lower price. The following is my configuration:
> 
> 
> regular local TV and (25Mbs) internet from Comcast
> ...


Obviously not a live sports fan.


----------



## buscuitboy (Aug 8, 2005)

sangs said:


> Obviously not a live sports fan.


ESPN and local TV have this covered enough for my needs. I am a hockey fan as well so if I REALLY wanted some live hockey, I would just go with NHL Center Ice on my Roku. NBA & MLB are also available. There are "other ways" to get live sports programming for free though & I have done it in the past so not too worried about this.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> I know I attempted to bow out of this ever growing ridiculously ignorant thread, but I had to pop back in here only to laugh my frickin butt off at the above uninformed, ignorant comment that's being made because of the brain numbing Kool Aid that the poster must've drank from his "reliable science" sources!


So I guess I'm "ignorant" for not believing some crazy preacher down south on Evolution or ExxonMobil on Climate Change. Who should I be listening to in order to learn that the sky is purple or that the sun rotates around the earth?



atmuscarella said:


> Yes in the world over all there are many facts. I hoped that was clear as reporting verifiable facts is what I believe the actual news media should be doing. However in politics most stuff is grey. A good example is Net Neutrality, while I have a strong opinion on what the FCC's rules mean and will do, there is still the fact that I may not know some key important piece of information and then there always is the law of unintentional consequences. To go a little further, reporting that the FCC has approved Net Neutrality rules is a verifiable fact and news. Report that Joe Blow said these rules will result in X is not a verifiable fact and is not news and belongs either in an opinion program or an analysis program not a news program.


Right. But then there are just plain distortions like calling Net Neutrality a "government takeover of the internet". The legitimate discussion/debate is not that, but rather how the government should or should not regulate the internet, what the competitive landscape looks like, and where government regulation is needed, what set of rules they should use for such regulation.



> There are certainly many things that a medical/scientific facts, which have a near 100% certainty that they will remain facts and as is. However there are also many medical/scientific theories which are accepted as fact now that can change (or be modified) if new information becomes available. Climate change is an good example, Climate change is a scientific fact - it can be measured and verified. What causes climate change (including Human activity) are scientific theories. How general specific actions will generally effect climate change are also likely scientific theories (example reducing CO2 omissions will slow global warming). However how detail actions will specifically effect climate change don't meet the requirements of a scientific theory and are really just scientific hypothesis (example if the world cuts CO2 omissions by X% the global temperature will be X degrees warmer/cooler in X years). There in lies the political grey, (what actions should we be taking).


It is a scientific fact that human emissions of CO2 and CH4 (among other things) cause climate change. Whether natural causes are causing 1% of the observed warming or 4% of the observed warming is really irrelevant to what we, as humans, need to do to avoid or slow climate catastrophe. The models of temperature rise based on certain scenarios are not scientific facts, nor are they wild ass guesses. They aren't really theories either, in the scientific sense of the world. They are predictive models that we know are factually directionally accurate, and are never going to be exactly accurate in the outcome, but are still entirely necessary for understand what is going on.



> What is in our best interest and what if any are our moral obligations are really very grey areas. I am sure I don't really have enough information to know what the best answers are and that the answer will very from place to place. It is my belief that over all our Government works hard to try and make the world a better place and that is in our best Interests. The grey is what actions to take and when.


Well, then you have to ask if we as the US are simply being the world police in our own self-interest, or out of a sense of moral obligation as a world superpower, or some mix thereof. The problem is, we often use moral obligation as a justification to intervene in other countries' affairs, and yet we are entirely inconsistent if held up to the standard of having to go police any major world conflict, genocide, etc that would require our intervention in order to bring about peace. And even then, we often screw stuff up when we do intervene (i.e. Iraq).


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> So I guess I'm "ignorant" for not believing some crazy preacher down south on Evolution or ExxonMobil on Climate Change. Who should I be listening to in order to learn that the sky is purple or that the sun rotates around the earth? ....
> 
> ......And even then, we often screw stuff up when we do intervene (i.e. Iraq).


No, you're ignorant for making such statements without the true scientific knowledge from BOTH sides.

We screwed up Iraq because we pulled out too early, not because we intervened. Thanks again Obama.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Why is it when you talk long enough to someone who's trying to convert you to their religion, sooner or later they seem always to get around to the need to do more killing?

And in the case of one particular religious sect, it's Obama this and Obama that.

Frankly, the sales pitch might be a lot more attractive if you kept these people in the back room for awhile until you've got the convert signed up and the dues paid.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Wil said:


> Why is it when you talk long enough to someone who's trying to convert you to their religion, sooner or later they seem always to get around to the need to do more killing?
> 
> And in the case of one particular religious sect, it's Obama this and Obama that. Frankly, the sales pitch might be a lot more attractive if you kept these people in the back room for awhile until you've got the convert signed up and the dues paid.


So are you actually saying that Iraq and Syria are better off NOW than if we would have stayed in Iraq until it was more stable?!?!?! That there would've been MORE killing if we'd stayed than what's going on now?!?!?! If so, then Man, you're more ignorant than Bigg!

BTW, it's not an"sales pitch". YOU are the only one to benefit from my (Jesus') "Sales Pitch". From this perspective it's a gift, so if you don't want it for you or your loved ones, then so be it. Just be willing to accept the outcome. Whatever that may truly be (Heaven, just ceasing to exist, purgatory, etc).

As I said. We will never truly know until it happens.

I made MY choice <><, Feel free to make yours. I look at it, in simplified terms (since that's what it looks like people need here to understand this easy concept), like I found out a great deal on a new Widget and I just want to share it with everyone so they can benefit from it too, because despite all this, I love everyone at the core. That's what it's ALL about!.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

We wouldn't have needed to leave Iraq if we had never gone there in 2003. There was no reason to go. There was only one reason we got suckered into it: Dick Cheney got paid.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Bottom line - Iraq is not winnable.

Tell me some/any positive things that Obama has done in office and if a republican wins next year I will respond the same way about that person.

If you cant do it that indicates a lot about your character.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

zalusky said:


> Bottom line - Iraq is not winnable. Tell me some/any positive things that Obama has done in office and if a republican wins next year I will respond the same way about that person. If you cant do it that indicates a lot about your character.


First of all, DO NOT ever question my character!

Secondly, I feel Obama and every President has done some good things for this country. I just feel what he's done in the Middle East and what he's not doing now there is deplorable.

Just because Bush may have made a mistake going there doesn't mean Obama should make an even bigger one by pulling out early and making an even worse mess, as we can see clearly happening.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Arcady said:


> We wouldn't have needed to leave Iraq if we had never gone there in 2003. There was no reason to go. There was only one reason we got suckered into it: Dick Cheney got paid.


I think we went into Iraq because of the younger Bush being mad that Saddam Hussein (he though) tried to bomb the elder Bush (his father) in Kuwait. 
I don't know what evidence anybody has that Cheney had any finical interest in the USA going into Iraq. He may have, but all I have seen is people saying this without any proof (that I have seen).


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

lessd said:


> I don't know what evidence anybody has that Cheney had any finical interest in the USA going into Iraq. He may have, but all I have seen is people saying this without any proof (that I have seen).


Cheney's Halliburton made $39.5 billion on the Iraq war. Cheney left the company in 2000 when he became vice president, but he kept his stock options. Before Cheney was in office, Halliburton was the military's number 19 contractor in terms of dollars spent. After 2000, they became number 1. Cheney's stock options which were worth $241,498 in 2000, were valued at more than $8 million in 2003-- for an increase of 3281%. Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity. (There is no proof he ever did.) Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. He was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004.

BTW, Halliburton's main contract before 2000 was doing oil contract work in Iran.

The guy is just evil.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Folks, with the greatest of due respect, what does any of the past xx pp. have to do with net neutrality? Perhaps you can start your own separate "I hate/like x" threads to discuss these matters and have people interested in them visit? Just a humble thought from one who was learning from this thread earlier.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> Folks, with the greatest of due respect, what does any of the past xx pp. have to do with net neutrality? Perhaps you can start your own separate "I hate/like x" threads to discuss these matters and have people interested in them visit? Just a humble thought from one who was learning from this thread earlier.


 Agreed.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Mikeguy said:


> Folks, with the greatest of due respect, what does any of the past xx pp. have to do with net neutrality? Perhaps you can start your own separate "I hate/like x" threads to discuss these matters and have people interested in them visit? Just a humble thought from one who was learning from this thread earlier.





tenthplanet said:


> Agreed.


+1 with my personal apologies.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Agreed!


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Arcady said:


> Cheneys Halliburton made $39.5 billion on the Iraq war. Cheney left the company in 2000 when he became vice president, but he kept his stock options. Before Cheney was in office, Halliburton was the military's number 19 contractor in terms of dollars spent. After 2000, they became number 1. Cheney's stock options which were worth $241,498 in 2000, were valued at more than $8 million in 2003-- for an increase of 3281%. Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity. (There is no proof he ever did.) Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. He was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004.
> 
> BTW, Halliburton's main contract before 2000 was doing oil contract work in Iran.
> 
> The guy is just evil.


Thanks for the info, now back to Net Neutrality


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

lessd said:


> Thanks for the info, now back to Net Neutrality


Agreed.


----------



## Big-Art (Feb 24, 2015)

This is one seriously ugly can of worms. We all just need to agree to disagree. I do find it interesting that thoese who Scream the loudest for tolerance are the most Intolerant.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> No, you're ignorant for making such statements without the true scientific knowledge from BOTH sides.


There is no debate about the overall concept of evolution or climate change, or for that matter, vaccines or whether the earth rotates around the sun. Any attempt to have "sides" or "balanced" coverage of an issue with a scientifically known answer is the false equivalency BS that has gotten this country to the low level of scientific understanding that it has.



> We screwed up Iraq because we pulled out too early, not because we intervened. Thanks again Obama.


If we had never been there in the first place, we wouldn't have left too early. Or if we hadn't dismantled the lower operational levels of the Baathist Party, the mess there today wouldn't be there. Or if we hadn't picked sides in a sectarian power struggle, the mess wouldn't be there. We had numerous opportunities not to screw up, but we continued to screw up. If we had gone in, removed the very top levels of the Baathist party, and integrated Kurds and Shia into the operations and leadership in government, and then left, things would have been fine. But no, we had to side with our Shia friends, pissed off too many Sunnis, and then ISIS came to be.



zalusky said:


> Bottom line - Iraq is not winnable.


We had many opportunities to win Iraq, and we bungled them over and over and over.



> Tell me some/any positive things that Obama has done in office and if a republican wins next year I will respond the same way about that person.


Heck, I can even think of one, singular good thing that Dubya did well. He got the ball rolling on building new nuclear power plants. Only one or two of them actually got built, but he had the right idea with that.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> There is no debate about the overall concept of evolution or climate change, or for that matter, vaccines or whether the earth rotates around the sun. Any attempt to have "sides" or "balanced" coverage of an issue with a scientifically known answer is the false equivalency BS that has gotten this country to the low level of scientific understanding that it has. If we had never been there in the first place, we wouldn't have left too early. Or if we hadn't dismantled the lower operational levels of the Baathist Party, the mess there today wouldn't be there. Or if we hadn't picked sides in a sectarian power struggle, the mess wouldn't be there. We had numerous opportunities not to screw up, but we continued to screw up. If we had gone in, removed the very top levels of the Baathist party, and integrated Kurds and Shia into the operations and leadership in government, and then left, things would have been fine. But no, we had to side with our Shia friends, pissed off too many Sunnis, and then ISIS came to be. We had many opportunities to win Iraq, and we bungled them over and over and over. Heck, I can even think of one, singular good thing that Dubya did well. He got the ball rolling on building new nuclear power plants. Only one or two of them actually got built, but he had the right idea with that.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Basically the jist of it is that saying net neutrality hurts consumers is like saying the the Iraq war was good, the earth is flat and only a few thousand years old, women came from the ribs of a man, and a vast majority of scientists are looney for stating mankind has contributed to climate change and there is no climate change/warming because it happens to snow somewhere someday.

just sayin'


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

foghorn2 said:


> Basically the jist of it is that saying net neutrality hurts consumers is like saying the the Iraq war was good, the earth is flat and only a few thousand years old, women came from the ribs of a man, and a vast majority of scientists are looney for stating mankind has contributed to climate change and there is no climate change/warming because it happens to snow somewhere someday. just sayin'


Finally, a post that makes sense and sums it all up in one fell swoop!


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Finally, a post that makes sense and sums it all up in one fell swoop!


Kind of a Grand Unified Theory!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> Finally, a post that makes sense and sums it all up in one fell swoop!


The funny thing is that statement has different meanings depending on who reads it and their political affiliation. Unfortunately one of them is very wrong and they currently hold the majority in congress.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> The funny thing is that statement has different meanings depending on who reads it and their political affiliation. Unfortunately one of them is very wrong and they currently hold the majority in congress.


The truth is, none of them are wrong, and none of them are right and we are all idiots for thinking otherwise because that's what they want, the population to be confused and divided so they can slip in their agenda without anybody really noticing and if someone does, they're labeled a "whack-job, imbecile"..........sound familiar sheeple?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Didn't we agree on something earlier?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

zalusky said:


> Didn't we agree on something earlier?


Yeah, but didn't you see how they managing to fit in the words "net neutrality" into the above?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> The truth is, none of them are wrong, and none of them are right and we are all idiots for thinking otherwise because that's what they want, the population to be confused and divided so they can slip in their agenda without anybody really noticing and if someone does, they're labeled a "whack-job, imbecile"..........sound familiar sheeple?


The fact that you take a "no one is right" stance means that you are one of the people contributing to the confusion. There is a right answer and I can guarantee you it's not in your magic book or in the "findings" of the "scientists" funded by the fossil fuel industry. The earth is round, it's 4.5 billion years old, it revolves around the sun, every species that ever existed evolved from a lower life form, and pumping 40 billion tons of carbondioxide into the atmosphere every year causes the earth to warm. Disputing those facts because they don't line up with your religion or your parties financial interests does not make it a debate, it just makes you wrong.


----------



## namwoljr (Aug 8, 2014)

I'm surprised this thread isn't locked by now. I'm also surprised that I keep checking it, hoping it will evolve into meaningful discussion about net neutrality and not a soapbox to try to convert people to christianity. I don't understand the connection.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> The fact that you take a "no one is right" stance means that you are one of the people contributing to the confusion. There is a right answer and I can guarantee you it's not in your magic book or in the "findings" of the "scientists" funded by the fossil fuel industry. The earth is round, it's 4.5 billion years old, it revolves around the sun, every species that ever existed evolved from a lower life form, and pumping 40 billion tons of carbondioxide into the atmosphere every year causes the earth to warm. Disputing those facts because they don't line up with your religion or your parties financial interests does not make it a debate, it just makes you wrong.


In your opinion based on your science, but the problem is, there's a ton of science that points in different directions. Carbon dating has been known to be wrong and based on some false assumptions. There are currently many scientists that are starting to realize the more they investigate and learn, the more it points to intelligent design. Dispute this, and it is you that are wrong.

While I agree with some of what you say, it does no one any good whatsoever to only look at evidence and knowledge from one side of the equation (theirs) and then make a determination. You MUST gain the knowledge from both sides to make a well educated and informed decision, which from the sounds of many of you I can almost guarantee you have NOT done.

I'm not saying I extensively have either, but at least I have an open mind and take the time to gather knowledge and know enough about each side to make the choices I have so far. I don't think I can say the same for many of you, and it's easily noticeable based on your ignorant responses.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

namwoljr said:


> I'm surprised this thread isn't locked by now. I'm also surprised that I keep checking it, hoping it will evolve into meaningful discussion about net neutrality and not a soapbox to try to convert people to christianity. I don't understand the connection.


The connection is there. Deep behind the scenes finacial interests distort facts and truths knowing the masses out there can easily be misguided.

I love this forum, its very open. Most other places would have locked this by now.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Based on existing forum rules it should have been locked days ago.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

namwoljr said:


> I'm also surprised that I keep checking it, hoping it will evolve into meaningful discussion about net neutrality . . . .


^ +10.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> Based on existing forum rules it should have been locked days ago.


 That does it, I'm running down to Loewe's and getting a forum lock. Anybody know what sizes they come in.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

tenthplanet said:


> That does it, I'm running down to Loewe's and getting a forum lock. Anybody know what sizes they come in.


They're all sold out, sorry!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> In your opinion based on your science, but the problem is, there's a ton of science that points in different directions. Carbon dating has been known to be wrong and based on some false assumptions. There are currently many scientists that are starting to realize the more they investigate and learn, the more it points to intelligent design. Dispute this, and it is you that are wrong.


These "scientists" are trying to make the science fit their beliefs and you're favoring their "findings" because they fit yours.

I don't expect to change your mind. But the scientific consensus, based on thousands of peer reviewed experiments, flies in the face of those beliefs. A few scientists who devise crackpot theories about carbon dating being wrong so that they can try to prove the words in your magic book does not change that. Your book and your religion were created by ignorant men that needed gods and miracles to explain all the things they didn't understand. And now that we have tools and methods to show that it's not all magic religious people go out of their way to either try to discredit those tools/methods or say that "god designed it that way to trick our experiments" so that they can cling to the teachings of their 2,000 year old magic book.

And the same applies to climate science. 98% of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and it's at least partially due to the activities of men. For some reason you and your party are clinging to the "findings" of the other 2%. This one however seems to be indoctrinated by the church of Fox News rather then an actual church.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I don't like to lock threads that I participated in because it makes it seem like I'm trying to get the last word. But if one of the other mods or the admin decides to lock this then so be it.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> These "scientists" are trying to make the science fit their beliefs and you're favoring their "findings" because they fit yours.
> 
> I don't expect to change your mind. But the scientific consensus, based on thousands of peer reviewed experiments, flies in the face of those beliefs. A few scientists who devise crackpot theories about carbon dating being wrong so that they can try to prove the words in your magic book does not change that. Your book and your religion were created by ignorant men that needed gods and miracles to explain all the things they didn't understand. And now that we have tools and methods to show that it's not all magic religious people go out of their way to either try to discredit those tools/methods or say that "god designed it that way to trick our experiments" so that they can cling to the teachings of their 2,000 year old magic book.
> 
> And the same applies to climate science. 98% of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and it's at least partially due to the activities of men. For some reason you and your party are clinging to the "findings" of the other 2%. This one however seems to be indoctrinated by the church of Fox News rather then an actual church.


Could anything newly discovered in science ever change your mind ?? The only problem I have with climate scientists is the political pressure they find themselves in, if somebody, say, disputed Einstein's theory of relativity E=mc2 it may not even make the news as others try to see if this new theory makes any sense, no political pressure would exist. To many people are making or have made big $ investments because of the theory that man is a big cause of climate change, I have not seen any papers about how much crap gets into our atmosphere from active volcanoes, decay of animals, forest fires, and far less advanced societies, etc. in our world. This does not mean the climate scientists are wrong, but the people in the western world standard of living depends on the liberal use of energy.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> The funny thing is that statement has different meanings depending on who reads it and their political affiliation. Unfortunately one of them is very wrong and they currently hold the majority in congress.


Correct.



Dan203 said:


> The fact that you take a "no one is right" stance means that you are one of the people contributing to the confusion. There is a right answer and I can guarantee you it's not in your magic book or in the "findings" of the "scientists" funded by the fossil fuel industry. The earth is round, it's 4.5 billion years old, it revolves around the sun, every species that ever existed evolved from a lower life form, and pumping 40 billion tons of carbondioxide into the atmosphere every year causes the earth to warm. Disputing those facts because they don't line up with your religion or your parties financial interests does not make it a debate, it just makes you wrong.


Exactly! He's trying to pull the false equivalency BS. I see right through it, and so can anyone else who is halfway educated/literate in what's going on in Washington right now.



HarperVision said:


> In your opinion based on your science, but the problem is, there's a ton of science that points in different directions.


That's factually wrong. It is not my opinion that human sources of GHG's are causing AGW. I cannot have an opinion on the matter, because the science is unequivocal. I either know the facts, or I don't.



Dan203 said:


> These "scientists" are trying to make the science fit their beliefs and you're favoring their "findings" because they fit yours.
> 
> I don't expect to change your mind. But the scientific consensus, based on thousands of peer reviewed experiments, flies in the face of those beliefs. A few scientists who devise crackpot theories about carbon dating being wrong so that they can try to prove the words in your magic book does not change that. Your book and your religion were created by ignorant men that needed gods and miracles to explain all the things they didn't understand. And now that we have tools and methods to show that it's not all magic religious people go out of their way to either try to discredit those tools/methods or say that "god designed it that way to trick our experiments" so that they can cling to the teachings of their 2,000 year old magic book.


Although there are a lot of crackpots out there who literally believe in creation, and a lot of crackpot christians, that isn't necessarily directly linked to climate denial. There are many christian churches and groups who are advocating action on climate change, some even going as far as talking about "protecting god's creation", which is a really bizarre combination of thoughts.



> And the same applies to climate science. 98% of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and it's at least partially due to the activities of men. For some reason you and your party are clinging to the "findings" of the other 2%. This one however seems to be indoctrinated by the church of Fox News rather then an actual church.


It's incredibly frustrating and sad to see the climate skeptics meeting, and, as a group, going through the four stages of climate denial, while they proudly list sponsors like coal associations and a plethora of groups that receive funding from ExxonMobil.



lessd said:


> Could anything newly discovered in science ever change your mind ?? The only problem I have with climate scientists is the political pressure they find themselves in, if somebody, say, disputed Einstein's theory of relativity E=mc2 it may not even make the news as others try to see if this new theory makes any sense, no political pressure would exist. To many people are making or have made big $ investments because of the theory that man is a big cause of climate change, I have not seen any papers about how much crap gets into our atmosphere from active volcanoes, decay of animals, forest fires, and far less advanced societies, etc. in our world.


The effects of everything that are not humans dumping CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere have been studied over and over, and are very well understood. Scientists have also looked at it the other way around, and look at the increase in CO2 levels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and climate change. There is no scientific doubt that at least 95% of the observed warming is caused by humans. And the natural variation theory is complete BS too. The current warming rate is several orders of magnitude higher than can naturally occur.



> This does not mean the climate scientists are wrong, but the people in the western world standard of living depends on the liberal use of energy.


First of all, separate American and Western. The Western standard of living and the American standard of living are two different things. The American standard of living, almost uniquely, was built in the post-war era upon incredibly cheap, plentiful, and dirty carbon-based fossil fuels. The chickens are coming home to roost on that.

However, the notion that we somehow have to all live in yurts on a commune to reduce CO2 emissions is just plain wrong. We used to burn coal for steam locomotives and home heating. We don't do that anymore, and our standard of living is higher. The same thing can be true for renewable energy and energy efficiency. There is no reason that we need to continue using energy at the rate that we are using it to maintain our standard of living, and there is no reason that we have to keep using carbon-intense sources of energy.

The problem is that our Congress is unable to do anything, and we haven't had an official energy policy in a long time. If we, as an entire country were smart about renewables and energy efficiency, we could be off fossil fuels almost entirely in 15-20 years. We already have all of the technology necessary to do it, and a strategy that started with strict energy efficiency, electrification of building heating and transportation, and then implemented nuclear and renewable electricity generation followed by renewable liquid transportation fuels for the transportation that cannot be electrified would nearly eliminate fossil fuel use in the US in 15-20 years, create millions of new jobs, and increase our GDP, while improving our trade imbalance.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Arcady said:


> We wouldn't have needed to leave Iraq if we had never gone there in 2003. There was no reason to go. There was only one reason we got suckered into it: Dick Cheney got paid.


Even the New York Times finally admitted that there were indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush and Cheney were right all along.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Sorry, but: this thread has nothing to do with net neutrality at this point. Perhaps the thread title should be changed to reflect, "Off-topic." It's too bad--there actually was informative info. on the topic earlier, and various people, as reflected above, would like there to be again.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> Could anything newly discovered in science ever change your mind ?? The only problem I have with climate scientists is the political pressure they find themselves in, if somebody, say, disputed Einstein's theory of relativity E=mc2 it may not even make the news as others try to see if this new theory makes any sense, no political pressure would exist. To many people are making or have made big $ investments because of the theory that man is a big cause of climate change, I have not seen any papers about how much crap gets into our atmosphere from active volcanoes, decay of animals, forest fires, and far less advanced societies, etc. in our world. This does not mean the climate scientists are wrong, but the people in the western world standard of living depends on the liberal use of energy.


Of course, I'm a man of science. But I honestly don't see that happening. There may be political pressure on the issue, but the basic science is clear. Carbon dioxide is a green house gas. The more that is in the atmosphere the more heat the atmosphere is able to retain. We humans are pumping 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year while simultaneously destroying the forests that would help pull it back out. The earth is getting warmer. We may not be the sole contributor to the warming, but we certainly aren't helping the situation.

That being said I'm not sure I even really care about the politics of climate change. Most of the scientists agree that the damage is done. The time to do something about it was 30 years ago. What erks me is the people who refuse to believe it's even real or that we humans contributed to it in any way. That, to me, is about as crazy as believing the words in a 2,000 year old magic book.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> Sorry, but: this thread has nothing to do with net neutrality at this point. Perhaps the thread title should be changed to reflect, "Off-topic." It's too bad--there actually was informative info. on the topic earlier, and various people, as reflected above, would like there to be again.


There are other threads about net neutrality, this thread was actually about Mark Cuban's asinine comments that net neutrality would lead to FCC censorship of the web.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Of course, I'm a man of science.


OK! I will leave it at that as you answered my question.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> There are other threads about net neutrality, this thread was actually about Mark Cuban's asinine comments that net neutrality would lead to FCC censorship of the web.


Yep, previously informative.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Science is the only way to decipher anything. I say don't lock the thread- its another tactic of deniers to stifle speech and discussion.

The net is full of believers and deniers of science while using tools created by scientific discoveries instead of divine creation.

Great discussion here, yes its off tangent getting into religion and climate change but it is all related. 

Meanwhile isis is indoctrinating little children with their religion to grow up to kill others who think, live and believe differently.

"its a beautiful world, sweet romantic place, beautiful people everywhere, and the way they show they care....."


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

You guys crack me up with your ignorant "magic book" BS. It just proves my point that you have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER about the opposing side you're supposedly debating against! 

The ONLY info you have is what supports YOUR stance so you run with it, yet you're trying to say that's what I am doing, when I at least KNOW both sides! Very hypocritical. 

If you're SO strong in your beliefs, then man up, grow some balls and do some real research on "the magic book" side of the equation and then report back in however many years it takes you. 

Even easier. Read the two books I mentioned earlier and then come back and debate and prove each point made with your "real human (read: always subject to change) science". 

Did you know that the Bible is the closest written to its actual events happening document of any written account of history? (About 40 years, with eye witnesses!). No other account in ancient history is within a couple hundred years of this eyewitness account as written in the Bible. (Alexander the Great was about 400 years of I recall)

As I've said, If you're not going to understand the FACTS about both sides then your words are just piss in the wind!


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> ....
> If you're SO strong in your beliefs......


"I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief"

-Neil Peart
-foghorn2

Science is the only way!


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> if one of the other mods or the admin decides to lock this then so be it.


So, Sheepie, this thread isn't among your top 10 all time TCF? I think it has Jm J Bullock potential if we were to mostly hold back and let [name deleted] run with it for awhile.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

foghorn2 said:


> "I don't have faith in faith I don't believe in belief" -Neil Peart -foghorn2 Science is the only way!


Sorry to hear that. It must suck being so cynical.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> If you're SO strong in your beliefs, then man up, grow some balls and do some real research on "the magic book" side of the equation and then report back in however many years it takes you.


There are 19 major religions in the world. All with very different beliefs and their own magic books. How many of them did you study before you came to the conclusion that Christianity was the right one? I'm guessing none.

The great thing about science is that it doesn't require "belief". You only believe what has been proven. Sure there are theories that we may believe before they are actually proven, but they're based on observable facts and logic and if someone does come along and disprove one we accept the proof and change our understanding to match. Unlike religion where you have to deny the proof if it doesn't line up with your beliefs.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Wil said:


> So, Sheepie


It's funny that I'm the sheep when you guys are the ones blindly following a 2,000 year old book written by men without even a basic understanding of science.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> It's funny that I'm the sheep when you guys are the ones blindly following a 2,000 year old book written by men without even a basic understanding of science.


You think you (or anybody) can come out ahead in any religious discussion, not possible.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> You think you (or anybody) can come out ahead in any religious discussion, not possible.


I know, I shouldn't have got sucked in.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> It's funny ... you guys


Sorry for the zoom. My bad.

As far as nicknames in general, you never know. Since this one, "Sheepie," was given to you with so much love, and he's praying for you because you need it (at least that's what he said before he edited his post) I thought we should try it for awhile, see if you grow to like it.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> There are 19 major religions in the world. All with very different beliefs and their own magic books. How many of them did you study before you came to the conclusion that Christianity was the right one? I'm guessing none. The great thing about science is that it doesn't require "belief". You only believe what has been proven. Sure there are theories that we may believe before they are actually proven, but they're based on observable facts and logic and if someone does come along and disprove one we accept the proof and change our understanding to match. Unlike religion where you have to deny the proof if it doesn't line up with your beliefs.


You'd be surprised at the similarities of those religions actually and also how much I know on many of them. MUCH more than you apparently so you just keep throwing out this drivel without answering the question or being willing to do any real research, instead just spewing a POV that's been applied there by the world that's is today and the PSYOPS that they're employing to brainwash you and dumb you down. Oh, and I know all about PSYOPS too. Almost 25 years doing that teaches a thing or two about these sorts of things.

So I guess you're saying you have absolutely no belief in anything you can't see and no faith in anything then?

You can't see the wind, but you can feel its effects.



Dan203 said:


> It's funny that I'm the sheep when you guys are the ones blindly following a 2,000 year old book written by men without even a basic understanding of science.


You mean, written by the men who walked with the Son of God and are His appointed messengers of His word until His return at the End of Days. I would take that over some human scientist anyday.

Did you happen to know that that "Magic Book", particularly the Old Testament, predicted practically everything that has happened up to this point? It predicted the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, over 400 years BEFORE he came and He fulfilled EVERY single one of the 48 prophecies from the Old Testament, being the only human being prior, during and since in the entire known history of the World to do so!

*The Case for Christ, CH 10:

The coincidence argument:

First I asked Lapides whether it's possible that Jesus merely fulfilled the prophecies by accident. Maybe he's just one of many throughout history who have coincidentally fit the prophetic fingerprint.

"Not a chance" came his response "the odds are so astronomical that they rule that out. Someone did the math and figured out that the probability of just eight prophecies being fulfilled is one chance in at 100 million billion. That number is millions of times greater than the total number of people who ever walked the planet!

"He calculated that if you took this number of silver dollars they would cover the state of Texas to a depth of 2 feet. If you marked one silver dollar among them and then had a blindfolded person wander the whole state and bend over to pick up one coin, what would be the odds he'd choose the one that had been marked?"

With that he answered his own question "the same odds that anybody in history could have fulfilled just eight of the prophecies"

I had studied this same statistical analysis by mathematician Peter W Stoner when I was investigating the messianic prophecies for myself. Stoner also computed that the probability of fulfilling 48 prophecies was one chance in 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion!

Our minds can't comprehend a number that big. This is a staggering statistic that's equal to the number of minuscule atoms in 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion billion universes the size of our universe!

"The odds alone say it would be impossible for anyone to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and " Lapides concluded. "yet Jesus and only Jesus throughout all of history managed to do it"

The words of the apostle Peter popped into my head: "but the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets that His Christ should suffer, he has thus fulfilled" (Acts 3:18 NASB)*

How is that for science? I know, I know, you'll blow your brainwashed mouth with some yada yada yada BS explanation because you're either too stubborn or too scared to investigate the other side cuz you're afraid it might be true.

There is so much corroborating evidence for things and events in the Bible and more being learned every single day. One way or another, you'll know the truth, as will we all.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> You mean, written by the men who walked with the Son of God and are His appointed messengers of His word until His return at the End of Days.


There you go with the random caps again. You know you look like a crazy person doing that, right?

Beetlejuice!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> There you go with the random caps again. You know you look like a crazy person doing that, right? Beetlejuice!


They're not "random". It is supposed to be that way. You look like a stubborn fool that won't see both sides of an debate because it's more important to be right in your own eyes and possibly admit that maybe you could be wrong about something. Narcissism comes to mind.

Color me crazy!


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> They're not "random". It is supposed to be that way. You look like a stubborn fool that won't see both sides of an debate because it's more important to be right in your own eyes and possibly admit that maybe you could be wrong about something. Narcissism comes to mind.
> 
> Color me crazy!


Nope. Not supposed to be that way. I'm not in a debate.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> Nope. Not supposed to be that way. I'm not in a debate. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.


They're not my facts. read above or are you afraid to?


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Arcady said:


> Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.


If the newly-returned Mr. Bott shuts this thread down, is he violating the SPIRIT of net neutrality?

If I had capitalized "Net Neutrality" because I personally believe in It very much, could I be accused of random capitalization?

I suspect we've got only a couple of hours left, tops. I say lets make this thread something to go down in history!


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Is this fun or what


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

lessd said:


> Is this fun or what


Except for the occasional ****** butting in to talk about net neutrality, it is one of the most amusing threads I've run across here in quite awhile.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Wil said:


> If the newly-returned Mr. Bott shuts this thread down, is he violating the SPIRIT of net neutrality?
> 
> If I had capitalized "Net Neutrality" because I personally believe in It very much, could I be accused of random capitalization?
> 
> I suspect we've got only a couple of hours left, tops. I say lets make this thread something to go down in history!


LOL 

You can capitalize the name and pronouns of any fake magic people or concepts you want.

Okay, before they kill the thread, let's see if I can cover all of the spelling/grammar errors everyone loves so much.

TiVo names:
It is spelled "Premiere" and not "Premier" or "Preemir" or "Premere."
It is spelled "Roamio" and not "Romaio" or "Romeo."

Spelling:
The word "lose" and "loose" do not mean the same thing.
"It's" means "it is." "Its" is possessive. 
It is not "should of." It is "should have."


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Wil said:


> Except for the occasional ****** butting in to talk about net neutrality, it is one of the most amusing threads I've run across here in quite awhile.


Yep, except that, as one of those so-called a**hats, I keep on thinking that the discussion might actually get back to the topic, to learn from; and in the interim, wish that the name of the thread topic would be changed to make clear that one shouldn't come to the thread to post or to read expecting that to be the case, and that the thread is now for other purposes (whatever that might be). I guess that "butting in" into a thread is all relative.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Latest Net Neutrality News:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/technology/fcc-releases-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Arcady said:


> let's see if I can cover all of the spelling/grammar errors everyone loves so much


Just between you and I, your list needs to go farther.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Wil said:


> Just between you and I, your list needs to go farther.


I was going to add more, but I thought it might be a tad too annoying, and I got tired of typing it.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Arcady said:


> LOL
> 
> You can capitalize the name and pronouns of any fake magic people or concepts you want.
> 
> ...


You could have at least identified the spelling and grammar offenders.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Well, I guess now that I'm caught in a childish, immature circle jerk of mob mentality I should just bow out before you call in all your brainless cronies to throw more imbecilic stones.

At least now I can understand how something as atrocious as the Holocaust could have started. If you all lived in Nazi Germany you'd be lock step marching down the streets of Berlin, chanting for and saluting the Fuhrer. 



lessd said:


> You could have at least identified the spelling and grammar offenders.


You mean like Dan always using "then", when he should be using "than"?


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> If you all lived in Nazi Germany you'd be lock step marching down the streets of Berlin, chanting for and saluting the Fuhrer.


I may be overly sensitive, but I feel that perhaps we have displeased HarperVision.

Probably I'm just reading into it, but I sense a very subtle negative vibe.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Sorry to intrude, but an article on the just-released FCC net neutrality rules, including a link to the rules. Happy reading. 

http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-goes-public-with-net-neutrality-rules-for-governing-internet/

Direct link to the (400 pp.) rules and FCC discussion: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> ...an article on the just-released FCC net neutrality rules


"the actual text of the new rules is only 305 words long."

And seems harmless enough.

The devil, whom I fully expect to find here, lies somewhere in the 400 pages explaining what those 305 words mean.

I meant no disrespect to Devil worshipers. Some of my best friends ...


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

And for those preferring Cliff Notes: the FCC's net neutrality "fact sheet."

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-open-internet-order-separating-fact-fiction


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> And for those preferring Cliff Notes: the FCC's net neutrality "fact sheet."
> 
> http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-open-internet-order-separating-fact-fiction


... which looks suspiciously like a marketing document.

A brochure with colorful pictures that usually ends something like: this document is not an offering, which can be made only by prospectus.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Wil said:


> I may be overly sensitive, but I feel that perhaps we have displeased HarperVision. Probably I'm just reading into it, but I sense a very subtle negative vibe.


Well, as a true Christian I wouldn't say "displeased", more like "disheartened" at the sorry state of affairs of the human race, especially apparently the majority of the members of this forum.

Some of you really need to get out of mommy's basement and off your game consoles and TiVos and join the real world again.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

And back on net neutrality  , most specifically, see pp. 283-285 of the FCC document, for the most germane rules.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Wil said:


> ... which looks suspiciously like a marketing document.
> 
> A brochure with colorful pictures that usually ends something like: this document is not an offering, which can be made only by prospectus.


But of course it is, with a 3-2 split at the FCC.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> So I guess you're saying you have absolutely no belief in anything you can't see and no faith in anything then?
> 
> You can't see the wind, but you can feel its effects.


Show me one repeatable experiment where I can physically feel the effects of god and you will change my mind right now.



HarperVision said:


> You mean, written by the men who walked with the Son of God and are His appointed messengers of His word until His return at the End of Days. I would take that over some human scientist anyday.


No I mean men who wrote a bunch of fake sh*t down in a book and then convinced you, and billions of other people, to believe it as truth.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> You mean like Dan always using "then", when he should be using "than"?


Could be, I do tend to misuse those.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> Well, as a true Christian I wouldn't say "displeased", more like "disheartened" at the sorry state of affairs of the human race, especially apparently the majority of the members of this forum.


You realize that the vast majority of the human race believes something different then you right? And has for all of human existance?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> You realize that the vast majority of the human race believes something different then you right? And has for all of human existance?


You mean "than" me, right? 

PS: Actually I'd probably say the majority of mankind believes in some kind of higher power.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Every single thing that science discovers only begs the question once again......"well, how did THAT happen/get there/come to be?" Like the Big Bang Theory. How did that tiny little atom get there to explode into our universe in the first place? How does everything in the universe follow perfect fundamental laws in every instance by the same factor? That "sh*t" as you call it was intelligent design because there's no way in Hell it happens "by accident". Just look at odds of any life, let alone intelligent life, just happening "by accident". I don't know the exact number off the top of my head but it's an unfathomable number beyond any chance of everything perfectly aligning in that exact one billion billionth of a second (or whatever the hell it took for the Big Bang)

It's funny that you would actually believe that happening "by accident" before you could believe maybe we humans aren't the end all, be all of this tiny universe! Geez wake up and use your brains for once!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

There is a big difference between believing that "god" created the the big bang and believing that the earth and man are products of "intelligent design". If you said to me that you believed in all modern scientific facts/theories but you believed that "god" is the one that set off the big bang and started the whole thing, I'd say maybe you're right. Because there is really no way to know what came before the big bang or how it got there. But it's a big leap from there to believing the earth is only 6,000 years old and that radio carbon dating is fake/wrong.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> There is a big difference between believing that "god" created the the big bang and believing that the earth and man are products of "intelligent design". If you said to me that you believed in all modern scientific facts/theories but you believed that "god" is the one that set off the big bang and started the whole thing, I'd say maybe you're right. Because there is really no way to know what came before the big bang or how it got there. But it's a big leap from there to believing the earth is only 6,000 years old and that radio carbon dating is fake/wrong.


That IS pretty much what I'm saying. I never said the earth is only 6,000 years old and yes, it has been shown that they've made mistakes when it comes to carbon dating things, many times actually.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> .....* If you said to me that you believed in all modern scientific facts/theories *.....,,,,


Boy, aren't we arrogant little humans, aren't we. you sound like every over confident, egotistical, narcissistic society that's ever plagued the earth with that one Dan!

.......only to be proven wrong by the next "great" society of the same ilk.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

The nice thing about science is that our understanding of things can be flexible as new facts are learned. People can also freely say they don't know things. They aren't required to have absolute knowledge, because they accept the notion that nobody has it. "I don't know" does not equal "therefore, God." That is an unprovable logical leap.

The rigidity and simplicity of "god done did it" for anything and everything, with nothing but the faith that comes with a presuppositional mindset to back it up, is what I would call arrogance.

When it comes down to it, the general atheist standpoint isn't "no god," but "there's no proof of god." Reasonable atheists interested in truth leave the opening there until proof emerges. They're just not going to hedge their bets or make any leaps of faith to get there, which is why they're atheists. 

Also, natural selection (that which enables intelligent life) is the opposite of accidental.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Gotta give you boys credit: you _do_ consistently, determinedly, and stubbornly refuse to discuss the topic of this thread, even when the FCC actually formally releases out its net neutrality report and rules.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Net Neutrality will not kill anyone, unlike most religions.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> Gotta give you boys credit: you _do_ consistently, determinedly, and stubbornly refuse to discuss the topic of this thread, even when the FCC actually formally releases out its net neutrality report and rules.


Because the latter is more fun.


----------



## wedenton (Jun 13, 2002)

Wish I had never looked at this thread. I have lost a lot of respect for posters I once held in high regard.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

The FCC's net neutrality report (links) plus any related discussion, including an excerpt of the core rules (no need to comb through the 400-pp. report  ): http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=526397


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

wedenton said:


> Wish I had never looked at this thread. I have lost a lot of respect for posters I once held in high regard.


If you lose respect for a person for sharing their beliefs, that's on you.


----------



## ferrumpneuma (Jun 1, 2006)

wedenton said:


> Wish I had never looked at this thread. I have lost a lot of respect for posters I once held in high regard.


Please elaborate.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Arcady said:


> If you lose respect for a person for sharing their beliefs, that's on you.


(Off-topic: But that's a big assumption, that the loss of respect relates to the sharing of beliefs, as versus how it is done or the nature of the beliefs being shared, or the highjacking of a thread. But my apologies for going off-topic.)


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> Net Neutrality will not kill anyone, unlike most religions.


You mean people, not religions. Kind of like, it's the gun's fault, right?

I don't blame the religion of Islam for ISIS, I blame the nut jobs doing the brutality.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

No, I mean religions. People have been killing each other over religion for thousands of years, and they continue to do it.

"My fake invisible man is better than your fake invisible man."


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> No, I mean religions. People have been killing each other over religion for thousands of years, and they continue to do it. "My fake invisible man is better than your fake invisible man."


Ok then, make sure you arrest those pistols that killed the cops in Ferguson the other day, those things are killers!

Thanks for another completely ignorant statement.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

I never mentioned guns. My statement had nothing to do with guns. Where the &^%@$^% did you come up with guns?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> I never mentioned guns. My statement had nothing to do with guns. Where the &^%@$^% did you come up with guns?


Because it's basically the same thing as saying a religion killed someone. The "religion" didn't kill anyone. The person that distorted and twisted the religion is the one responsible for the killing. Just like in the gun debate.

Why is it nowadays that everyone puts blame on everything but themselves or the one actually responsible for their actions? Can no one take responsibility for themselves and their actions anymore?

Sure, in ANY organized human group there are always ones that do bad things in the name of said group. That doesn't make the ones acting responsible at fault. What if I happened to know someone named Arcady that murdered someone before? By your logic (or lack thereof), then all Arcadys are murderers, right? It's completely hilarious that you have this stance yet contradict yourselves saying that we can't call ISIS a bunch of "Muslim Extremists" for fear of offending all Muslims. You do know what "stereotyping" is, right? 

The religion I believe in is one of love, acceptance and grace. Ask me personally to explain it sometime.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Your religion has a book that calls for stoning people to death for doing certain things.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> What if I happened to know someone named Arcady that murdered someone before? By your logic (or lack thereof), then all Arcadys are murderers, right?


You certainly put Arcady in his place! I doubt he'll ever have the courage to show his face around here again, after you've destroyed him so brilliantly.


HarperVision said:


> The religion I believe in is one of love, acceptance and grace.


You've certainly shown us that.


HarperVision said:


> Ask me personally to explain it sometime.


Uhh, maybe some other time?

I think you're pretty much done here.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> You mean people, not religions. Kind of like, it's the gun's fault, right?
> 
> I don't blame the religion of Islam for ISIS, I blame the nut jobs doing the brutality.


I have some guns, and non say kill anybody, some religions do say to kill certain people in their magic books. These books were written at a time in history much different then today, so good people take out some or all of the bad stuff in the magic books and practice their beliefs without hurting anyone.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Wil said:


> You certainly put Arcady in his place! I doubt he'll ever have the courage to show his face around here again, after you've destroyed him so brilliantly. You've certainly shown us that. Uhh, maybe some other time? I think you're pretty much done here.


Please explain to me how I've not shown that? I am far from "done here". It seems you have a God complex yourself proclaiming when I'm done and when I'm not. Only myself or the moderators will decide that. (Hopefully soon, like the Roman overlords in my "magic book" who bowed down to Jewish demands  )

Why is it I'm the only one who's actually put real information out here. Everyone on the other side just replies with childish kindergarten sayings like "I don't know why I hit Johnny, Ms. Jones...... but Billy peed his pants!" How about some real info guys, or are you ignorant in those areas too?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> Your religion has a book that calls for stoning people to death for doing certain things.





lessd said:


> I have some guns, and non say kill anybody, some religions do say to kill certain people in their magic books. These books were written at a time in history much different then today, so good people take out some or all of the bad stuff in the magic books and practice their beliefs without hurting anyone.


Sources please? (Yes, I'm setting you up)


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> Sources please? (Yes, I'm setting you up)


I guess I can't prove that guns don't tell you to kill anybody. 

As to the magic books I will give you one example of one book the *Quran
* about killing. go to http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

The examples of other magic books are to numerous to sight all:


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

lessd said:


> I guess I can't prove that guns don't tell you to kill anybody As to the magic books I will give you one example of one book the Quran about killing. go to http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm The examples are to numerous to sight all:


Oh, so the Quran is making the members of ISIS brutalize the Middle East, is that what you're saying? So the peaceful Muslims are the ones that are wrong and not following their "magic book" to a tee?

BTW, if you haven't noticed, that's not MY religion.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> Oh, so the Quran is making the members of ISIS brutalize the Middle East, is that what you're saying? So the peaceful Muslims are the ones that are wrong and not following their "magic book" to a tee?


I said that _good people take *out* some or all of the bad stuff in the magic books and practice their beliefs without hurting anyone._

The problem is that some people don't want to take out the bad stuff, and think their being more true to Allah, as an example, but that not the only religion with this type of problem, good people of any religion try to follow the laws of the country they live in by taking out the bad stuff from their magic books, some by rewriting these books or just leaving out teaching the bad stuff.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Different reLIEgions take their turn being brutal and evil. Right now its the ones in the middle east. Sad to see the Hindus(a little bit more north and east) act like there nothing wrong when it comes to raping women... not in the same category as Isis, but I'd least expect that from the Hindus.

So sad.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

foghorn2 said:


> Different reLIEgions take their turn being brutal and evil. Right now its the ones in the middle east. Sad to see the Hindus act like there nothing wrong when it comes to raping women... not in the same category as Isis, but I'd least expect that from the Hindus.
> 
> So sad.


*So true*, even most good Christians, I am sure, were shocked that their Christian priest diddled little kids. Almost every religion have done bad things at one time or another.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> Why is it I'm the only one who's actually put real information out here. Everyone on the other side just replies with childish kindergarten sayings like "I don't know why I hit Johnny, Ms. Jones...... but Billy peed his pants!" How about some real info guys, or are you ignorant in those areas too?


If you're referring to the coincidence argument you shared in bold text, I think the problem is that there isn't much useful information to glean from it.

It presupposes, actually you insist there are eyewitness testimonies, as if there was a court stenographer following everybody around to document it all. It presupposes everybody always told the truth, nobody ever lied, nothing was ever lost in translation, nothing was ever re-written or simply made up later to retroactively fit.

So my mind's natural starting position is, "Were these prophecies actually made when they were claimed to me made? By the people who claimed to make them? Did they actually occur when and how they were claimed to occur? How do we know any of this for fact 2000 years later and no good, tangible evidence? If there is such good and tangible evidence, what is it?"

While, unless there is all kinds of evidence omitted from your sample for the sake of brevity, his/your argument's starting position is "trust me, it happened as we said it happened, and boy it'd be such an amazing string of coincidences if it DIDN'T happen."

That to me is just an intellectually false argument built on a wobbly foundation that attempts to shift burden of proof. The burden of proof will always belong to the maker of extraordinary claims, not everybody else to disprove. That's the way anything is established as fact, religious or not.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Please explain to me how I've not shown that [love, acceptance and grace]?


OK. You asked. Give me a minute here for a little cutting & pasting; we'll call it "From The Best of HarperVision's Discussion of Net Neutrality":


HarperVision said:


> the only "whack job" around here is the one he sees in the mirror every day.
> 
> After that totally ignorant post, I am officially out of this discussion. I'd do better debating with a brick wall.
> 
> ...


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Wil said:


> OK. You asked. Give me a minute here for a little cutting & pasting; we'll call it "From The Best of HarperVision's Discussion of Net Neurality":


:up:


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

lessd said:


> I said that good people take out some or all of the bad stuff in the magic books and practice their beliefs without hurting anyone. The problem is that some people don't want to take out the bad stuff, and think their being more true to Allah, as an example, but that not the only religion with this type of problem, good people of any religion try to follow the laws of the country they live in by taking out the bad stuff from their magic books, some by rewriting these books or just leaving out teaching the bad stuff.


You do understand the concept and reasoning behind the old and new testaments, right?

And no matter how you spin it, it's still NOT the religion or "magic book's" fault for these things happening.

Was the ONLY one to blame in Nazi Germany Adolf Hitler, or him AND all the fools that followed him? Those sheeple had a choice and they chose to follow him. Some with an actual heart and brain got out when they could, like my wife's family as a matter of fact.

For the last time, it's NOT the religion's fault for what the stupid azz humans do that are twisting it around to meet their agenda!!! Put the damned blame where it belongs! When are males going to grow up and move out of mommy's basement and take responsibility for their own lives and actions???

PEOLE NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS AND STOP BLAMING MOMMY FOR THEM RAPING SOMEONE OR THE MUSIC THEY LISTENED TO FOR KILLING SOMEONE!!!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> If you're referring to the coincidence argument you shared in bold text, I think the problem is that there isn't much useful information to glean from it. It presupposes, actually you insist there are eyewitness testimonies, as if there was a court stenographer following everybody around to document it all. It presupposes everybody always told the truth, nobody ever lied, nothing was ever lost in translation, nothing was ever re-written or simply made up later to retroactively fit. So my mind's natural starting position is, "Were these prophecies actually made when they were claimed to me made? By the people who claimed to make them? Did they actually occur when and how they were claimed to occur? How do we know any of this for fact 2000 years later and no good, tangible evidence? If there is such good and tangible evidence, what is it?" While, unless there is all kinds of evidence omitted from your sample for the sake of brevity, his/your argument's starting position is "trust me, it happened as we said it happened, and boy it'd be such an amazing string of coincidences if it DIDN'T happen." That to me is just an intellectually false argument built on a wobbly foundation that attempts to shift burden of proof. The burden of proof will always be the maker of extraordinary claims to prove, not the non-believers to disprove. That's the way anything is established as fact, religious or not.


Funny you should mention that. Just read the very next section, "The Altered Gospel Argument" and the next "The Intentional Fulfillment Argument", which I'm not wasting my time quoting this time.

You have heard of The Dead Sea Scrolls right, which have been proven by your science to be from when they say they were. There are other known writings and documents known to be from well before Jesus walked the earth as well.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Things from the Bible:

*Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests*
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

*Kill Witches*
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

*Kill Homosexuals*
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

*Kill Fortunetellers*
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

*Death for Hitting Dad*
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

*Death for Cursing Parents*
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

*Death for Adultery*
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

*Death for Fornication*
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

*Death to Followers of Other Religions*
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

*Kill Nonbelievers*
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

*Kill False Prophets*
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Is that enough? There are more.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Wil said:


> OK. You asked. Give me a minute here for a little cutting & pasting; we'll call it "From The Best of HarperVision's Discussion of Net Neutrality":





> Originally posted by HarperVision:
> 
> the only "whack job" around here is the one he sees in the mirror every day.
> 
> ...


These are all actions that I am in contradiction with, not the person themselves. I love ALL people at the core and only wish them well. I am smart enough to understand the reasons why people do things that they do, given their specific upbringing and circumstances. Yes, even Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, ISIS etc. If it were me in their shoes, who knows if I wouldn't turn out exactly the same? Just by knowing that though, it is NOT OK to use that as an excuse to not take responsibility for your own actions! I love them all as fellow members of the human race and pray for their souls. Their heinous actions? Of course I do NOT condone those, as any sane person wouldn't.

The best way to describe this is an experience I had while living in Central PA when that madman went into an Amish school and shot and killed those innocent kids and teachers. Later, the Amish families of the ones killed visited the widow of the man who did the shooting and prayed with her and for her now dead husband. Some went so far as to attend his funeral, pray for him and actually forgive him for what he did (in a religious sense).


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> Things from the Bible: Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) Kill Witches You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB) Kill Homosexuals "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) Kill Fortunetellers A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB) Death for Hitting Dad Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB) Death for Cursing Parents 1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB) 2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT) Death for Adultery If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT) Death for Fornication A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB) Death to Followers of Other Religions Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB) Kill Nonbelievers They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB) Kill False Prophets If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB) Is that enough? There are more.


 Those are all Old Testament Gospels and only tell half the story of MY religion. Keep reading and learning to understand the whole truth. That's basically the Jewish religion. I'm a Christian if you haven't noticed yet?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> Funny you should mention that. Just read the very next section, "The Altered Gospel Argument" and the next "The Intentional Fulfillment Argument", which I'm not wasting my time quoting this time.
> 
> You have heard of The Dead Sea Scrolls right, which have been proven by your science to be from when they say they were. There are other known writings and documents known to be from well before Jesus walked the earth as well.


Done. Not impressed for the same proof/manipulative reasons.

I'm aware of the DSS. What about them, exactly? Prove god? (That is the only real bottom line here.)

Spoiling it for myself: No.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> You do understand the concept and reasoning behind the old and new testaments, right?
> 
> And no matter how you spin it, it's still NOT the religion or "magic book's" fault for these things happening.
> 
> ...


Using the Nazis in any augment about religion is false, Hitler magic book was Mein Kampf from 1925, not thousand of years ago, Hitler did not use any establish religion as a basic of his brutally, the Nazis were more of a cult, and the USA has their share of such cults, never as big as the Nazis up to now. ISIL does follow their dumb interpretation of the Quran, they may and are wack jobs for doing so, but ISIL did not make this stuff up in the last few years, they picked out stuff in the Quran they wanted to follow; so to say their are a bunch of wack job people with *no religion *is just false.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> Done. Not impressed for the same proof/manipulative reasons. I'm aware of the DSS. What about them, exactly? Prove god? Spoiling it for myself: No.


Must be nice to be so stubborn as to only look at your own side of an argument's facts and figures and then pull out small snippets of stuff from the opposing side and think you're coming to some informed decision on the matter. 

People here seem to spend more time deciding whether to go monthly or pay for lifetime on their TiVos than (or is it "then"?  ) they do for something as important as the "why are we here and where do we come from" discussion.

Very sad to say the least.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

lessd said:


> Using the Nazis in any augment about religion is false, Hitler magic book was Mein Kampf from 1925, not thousand of years ago, Hitler did not use any establish religion as a basic of his brutally, the Nazis were more of a cult, and the USA has their share of such cults, never as big as the Nazis up to now. ISIL does follow their dumb interpretation of the Quran, they may and are wack jobs for doing so, but ISIL did not make this stuff up in the last few years, they picked out stuff in the Quran they wanted to follow; so to say their are a bunch of wack job people with no religion is just false.


Seriously? I am talking about ANY organized group of fallible humans who choose to let their minds be led to do atrocious things, not just religions. You actually prove my points, thanks!

Who ever said ISIS/ISIL had "no religion"?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> Must be nice to be so stubborn as to only look at your own side of an argument's facts and figures and then pull out small snippets of stuff from the opposing side and think you're coming to some informed decision on the matter.
> 
> People here seem to spend more time deciding whether to go monthly or pay for lifetime on their TiVos than (or is it "then"?  ) they do for something as important as the "why are we here and where do we come from" discussion.
> 
> Very sad to say the least.


I responded to the argument you presented. Don't know what to tell you. Assuming stubbornness for not falling on your side of an unprovable argument is a pretty silly notion to fall back on. Arguing about the lack of faith with faith never works on the internet. 

At the end of the day, I think we're here for whatever reason we decide to be here, and I see nothing wrong with that. I respect the bible for its mythology, but I just don't see a need to buy into it on faith to find fulfillment and purpose.

Even if I take the bible at face value, if my only crime in a quality life is disbelief and I get tossed into the eternal flame for it, while those who commit the most disgusting of crimes have an instant, undeserved forgiveness loophole built-in, that is a small and petty god not worthy of my worship. I don't care if in the Christian mindset that makes me arrogant. I'd be fine eternally burning before I kneel to any a-hole of that magnitude.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> I responded to the argument you presented. Don't know what to tell you. Assuming stubbornness for not falling on your side of an unprovable argument is a pretty silly notion to fall back on. Arguing about the lack of faith with faith never works on the internet.  At the end of the day, I think we're here for whatever reason we decide to be here, and I see nothing wrong with that. I respect the bible for its mythology, but I just don't see a need to buy into it on faith to find fulfillment and purpose. Even if I take the bible at face value, if my only crime in a quality life is disbelief and I get tossed into the eternal flame for it, while those who commit the most disgusting of crimes have an instant, undeserved forgiveness loophole built-in, that is a small and petty god not worthy of my worship. I don't care if in the Christian mindset that makes me arrogant. I'd be fine eternally burning before I kneel to any a-hole of that magnitude.


I'm not telling you that you have to fall on my side of the argument. I said the only way to make an informed decision on that, or anything for that matter, is to gather the true facts and figures from BOTH sides before any decision is made.

Many here are ONLY basing their biased decisions on one side of the equation and choose not to research the true facts and science on the Christian side.

If they do, then and only then would I respect their "informed" decision on the matter.

That would be like me poo-pooing Quantum Physics, of which I know nothing about.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> Those are all Old Testament Gospels and only tell half the story of MY religion. Keep reading and learning to understand the whole truth. That's basically the Jewish religion. I'm a Christian if you haven't noticed yet?


So you only kill people half the time? Are you saying Jews kill people all the time?

That stuff is from YOUR bible. You either believe in it, or you don't. You can't pick the parts you like.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> Boy, aren't we arrogant little humans


You have complete faith in a book written 2,000 years ago with absolutely no physical proof of anything it says and I'm arrogant?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> So you only kill people half the time? Are you saying Jews kill people all the time? That stuff is from YOUR bible. You either believe in it, or you don't. You can't pick the parts you like.


Haha, thanks for showing your ignorance (meaning: lack of knowledge, not a personal attack or insult BTW) again.

We HAVE owned it, that's the whole point and the very reason for Jesus to come as the Son of God and the New Testament and the entire premise of the "*Christ*ian" faith!

I'm sure you guys hypocritically celebrate Easter and *Christ*mas too, right?


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Okay, so which days of the week do go out and murder people as instructed by the bible?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> You have complete faith in a book written 2,000 years ago with absolutely no physical proof of anything it says and I'm arrogant?


See, that's the thing. You do absolutely NO RESEARCH whatsoever and then make a statement like that. There is as much or more "proof" out there as any ancient historical records out there. So yes, to say what you just said is arrogant.

If it's so easily proven to be false, then why is it still so hotly debatable and such a big topic in this day and age of all this wonderful science?


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

It takes a long time to get out of the dark ages. It will happen eventually. Probably when the sun runs out of power.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> Okay, so which days of the week do go out and murder people as instructed by the bible?


Are you just spewing out nonsense without actually reading anything or trying to understand anything that's being said?

If you actually understood what true Jesus centered Christianity was about you'd realize how utterly ridiculous you sound.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> It takes a long time to get out of the dark ages. It will happen eventually. Probably when the sun runs out of power.


Guess what, I actually respect Darwin and the decision that HE made based on his years of research and knowing BOTH sides and then making an informed decision based on said research. It's basically the same thing Lee Strobel did, but in the opposite direction and the one I happen to agree with.

You on the other hand, I have absolutely no respect for because you just spew out your diatribes with nothing to back it up and no knowledge at all on the subject for which you're trying to disprove.

That my friend is arrogance and ignorance to its fullest extent. If you don't know something, say so and stay out of it until you do!


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> I'm not telling you that you have to fall on my side of the argument. I said the only way to make an informed decision on that, or anything for that matter, is to gather the true facts and figures from BOTH sides before any decision is made.
> 
> Many here are ONLY basing their biased decisions on one side of the equation and choose not to research the true facts and science on the Christian side.
> 
> If they do, then and only then would I respect their "informed" decision on the matter.


You don't know anything about me other than my disagreement with your conclusions. Knowing absolutely nothing else, and claiming I'm stubborn for "only looking at my own side" is a pretty clear inference that people should fall on your side of the argument, less you make some ignorant comment about their character.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

There is no point in arguing with you, because you have your mind made up. You have rejected science, logic, and common sense.

You see arguments about guns when people talk about religion. You see arguments about religion when people talk about Santa Claus. You see arguments about Darwinism when people talk about the bible.

You have been brainwashed by the leading brainwashers of the western world, and nobody here is qualified to undo it.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

One last thing:

If "god" were a real person, then he's a complete jerk. He doesn't help anyone, he doesn't save anyone. People crash in a plane, and they say "thank god!" Why did god let the plane crash if he's so great? How about when a sports team thanks god? Does that mean god hates the other team? The whole thing makes no sense. If you believe in it, fine. I don't care. Be illogical and pray to some invisible nonsense you were told to believe in. But keep the rest of us out of it, and stop killing random people because they don't follow your sky fairy.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> See, that's the thing. You do absolutely NO RESEARCH whatsoever and then make a statement like that. There is as much or more "proof" out there as any ancient historical records out there. So yes, to say what you just said is arrogant.


There is NO proof. There may be historical records but there is no proof that their accounts are true. History is not a science. Science requires repeatable results. These accounts are probably about as accurate as a movie "based on a true story". There are some aspects of truth, but they're embellished and mixed with complete fiction to make a more compelling story.



HarperVision said:


> If it's so easily proven to be false, then why is it still so hotly debatable and such a big topic in this day and age of all this wonderful science?


Because people like you try to refute the truth to make it fit your book. There is no real debate about the science amongst scientist. The only people who debate the science are the religious people who refuse to even consider that their book could be wrong.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> You on the other hand, I have absolutely no respect for because you just spew out your diatribes with nothing to back it up and no knowledge at all on the subject for which you're trying to disprove.


It's nobody's job to disprove anything. The burden of proof has always been and will always be yours. No logical fallacies, presuppositional apologetics, or transcendental arguments will change that.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> You don't know anything about me other than my disagreement with your conclusions. Knowing absolutely nothing else, and claiming I'm stubborn for "only looking at my own side" is a pretty clear inference that people should fall on your side of the argument, less you make some ignorant comment about their character.


I'm not questioning YOU, I'm saying to make an informed decision a person needs to know both sides of the equation. Why is this so hard to understand? If you know both sides equally, then great, and as I said about Darwin I respect your decision. But if your personal decision is based on only knowledge of one side of the issue, then your conclusion is not based on all the facts.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> There is no point in arguing with you, because you have your mind made up. You have rejected science, logic, and common sense. You see arguments about guns when people talk about religion. You see arguments about religion when people talk about Santa Claus. You see arguments about Darwinism when people talk about the bible. You have been brainwashed by the leading brainwashers of the western world, and nobody here is qualified to undo it.


That's hilarious! . I could say the exact same thing about you!

They're called analogies by the way. You know, things that help ignorant people get the gist of something they don't understand.



Arcady said:


> One last thing: If "god" were a real person, then he's a complete jerk. He doesn't help anyone, he doesn't save anyone. People crash in a plane, and they say "thank god!" Why did god let the plane crash if he's so great? How about when a sports team thanks god? Does that mean god hates the other team? The whole thing makes no sense. If you believe in it, fine. I don't care. Be illogical and pray to some invisible nonsense you were told to believe in. But keep the rest of us out of it, and stop killing random people because they don't follow your sky fairy.


As I've said numerous times. That's the human being's fault for doing those things, not God's. When left on our own, we always end up skewing everything and imparting our own beliefs and faults into everything we do. That's the whole point of the cleansing from the Old Testament and renewal of the New Testament and the true Christian Faith.

Does a child not understand what their parents do, but still have trust in what they're doing based on their history of actions in the best interest of the child? Just because we as humans, who still have more things to learn than you could possibly imagine, don't understand God's plans does not mean or prove that it's not true and in the long term best interest of us all.

Unlike you all, I wasn't "told" to believe anything and then blindly followed. I was a big skeptic myself until I personally did the research and understood that side of things and then chose to believe and have faith that that's the truth. Plain and simple. Problem is, you don't appear to be doing the same. You know nothing about Christianity but you down it based on only your one sided knowledge. It's obvious, whether you decided to believe it or not, that you don't understand what it's all about the the theory behind it. Darwin understood both sides and then made his choice. You haven't it seems.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> There is NO proof. There may be historical records but there is no proof that their accounts are true. History is not a science. Science requires repeatable results. These accounts are probably about as accurate as a movie "based on a true story". There are some aspects of truth, but they're embellished and mixed with complete fiction to make a more compelling story. Because people like you try to refute the truth to make it fit your book. There is no real debate about the science amongst scientist. The only people who debate the science are the religious people who refuse to even consider that their book could be wrong.


That is totally WRONG! There is much debate amongst scientists regarding this issue. To say otherwise is utter nonsense.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> It's nobody's job to disprove anything. The burden of proof has always been and will always be yours. No logical fallacies, presuppositional apologetics, or transcendental arguments will change that.


Correct, and if you had your facts straight you'd see that's exactly what's been happening.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

You people are so foolish and misguided. All your questions and misconceptions would be answered if you would just investigate L. Ron Hubbard's writings on Dianetics, the new science of life.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

I think both sides have valid points of view. Whatever works. Now. How about that Net Neutrality huh? This other topic is going to go absolutely nowhere.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

God hates Comcast. Have proof.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> That is totally WRONG! There is much debate amongst scientists regarding this issue. To say otherwise is utter nonsense.


No the debate is between real scientists and religious fundamentalists who claim to be scientists. Real science requires observable facts and repeatable results. Anyone who believes a single book to be fact with zero proof of any of it's claims does not qualify as a scientist no matter what their degree says.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> No the debate is between real scientists and religious fundamentalists who claim to be scientists. Real science requires observable facts and repeatable results. Anyone who believes a single book to be fact with zero proof of any of it's claims does not qualify as a scientist no matter what their degree says.


WOW  Are you actually being serious right now? Me thinks someone needs to do a little more research.

Thanks for proving my points over and over again!


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> any of it's claims


its


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Here's a new one for my previous list:

"Releases out" makes no sense. The word is releases.

It's almost as annoying as when people say "reply back."


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> WOW  Are you actually being serious right now? Me thinks someone needs to do a little more research.


And me thinks someone is too engrossed in his own beliefs to know the difference between a real scientist and someone who calls themselves a "scientist" but really just believes the same, non-scientific, nonsense that he does.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> And me thinks someone is too engrossed in his own beliefs to know the difference between a real scientist and someone who calls themselves a "scientist" but really just believes the same, non-scientific, nonsense that he does.


Oh OK, thanks Dan. I feel so much smarter now.

So tell me, exactly how much research have you personally done on the Christianity side to come to that genius conclusion?


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

I don't understand why you keep telling people to do research. Seriously, no amount of research is going to prove that magic sky people exist.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)




----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> Seriously?
> Who ever said ISIS/ISIL had "no religion"?


You seem to do that in your post #159 by saying ISIL uses a false truth, I bet they don't think it's false.

_*Not to mention the current genocide that's happening to ANYONE that's not Muslim by ISIS/ISIL all around the globe and which the majority of the sheeple in the USA, including its leader, choose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore it, spewing some false "truth" that's it's not what it really is......hate and genocide, the same as has happened with the Nazis and many other "thought to be truth" societies.
*_


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

lessd said:


> You seem to do that in your post #159 by saying ISIL uses a false truth, I bet they don't think it's false.
> 
> Not to mention the current genocide that's happening to ANYONE that's not Muslim by ISIS/ISIL all around the globe and which the majority of the sheeple in the USA, including its leader, choose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore it, spewing some false "truth" that's it's not what it really is......hate and genocide, the same as has happened with the Nazis and many other "thought to be truth" societies.


I'm confused. Where in there do I say that ISIS isn't or doesn't believe in any religion?

I agree they believe it's real to them. That's fine, but it's false truth, which is all I ever called it. I never once said they have "no religion".


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> I don't understand why you keep telling people to do research. Seriously, no amount of research is going to prove that magic sky people exist.


Because there really is corroborating evidence and science that helps prove both the Jewish and Christian religions. You people just choose to ignore it and not take the time to be prepared before you open your ignorant mouths.

Do you believe in electricity? You can't see it, you only feel and see its effects, yet it's undeniable that it exists, right?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Fofer said:


>


Now that is actually funny!


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

I can see electricity. Ever heard of an arc?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> So tell me, exactly how much research have you personally done on the Christianity side to come to that genius conclusion?


Probably more then you. See we live in a Christian nation and all my life people have talked to me about God and Jesus as if it were fact. I had to do actual research, on actual science, and come to my own conclusion that religion is a bunch of BS. I was not indoctrinated with Atheism as a child, I was indoctrinated with Christianity like most Americans. I came to be an Atheist all on my own.

You keep getting up on this high horse like you're the only one that's done all the research and come to the proper conclusion. But in reality there many are men and women much smarter then either one of us, that have done much more research then either one of us, and the vast majority of them agree with me.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Probably more then you. See we live in a Christian nation and all my life people have talked to me about God and Jesus as if it were fact. I had to do actual research, on actual science, and come to my own conclusion that religion is a bunch of BS. I was not indoctrinated with Atheism as a child, I was indoctrinated with Christianity like most Americans. I came to be an Atheist all on my own. You keep getting up on this high horse like you're the only one that's done all the research and come to the proper conclusion. But in reality there many are men and women much smarter then either one of us, that have done much more research then either one of us, and the vast majority of them agree with me.


Well OK, that's all I ever wanted from you. Why didn't you just say that sooner? That's your decision based on your research. I doubt very highly others here have done their own though.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> I doubt very highly others here have done their own though.


You would be wrong.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> You would be wrong.


That doesn't seem possible based on some of your responses.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

Any chance this religious discussion that has nothing to do with net neutrality can be moved out of the Coffee House section?


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

jcthorne said:


> Any chance this religious discussion that has nothing to do with net neutrality can be moved out of the Coffee House section?


How about you just start another thread and stay out of this one? Simple.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

mschnebly said:


> How about you just start another thread and stay out of this one? Simple.


Or, hey, here's another thought: maybe the OP's thread shouldn't have been high-jacked to begin with and should have been left to remain on-point to the original topic; or maybe, that now having proved futile, the thread title should be changed so that people aren't misled, thinking that perhaps something informative to the thread's topic might have been posted. Even simpler.  But you have a good day there.

And, yes, there is another thread, on-point, to the topic: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=526397


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

There is a Political Talk forum here but you have to be a TC member to see/post in it. This thread does not belong here now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> That being said I'm not sure I even really care about the politics of climate change. Most of the scientists agree that the damage is done. The time to do something about it was 30 years ago. What erks me is the people who refuse to believe it's even real or that we humans contributed to it in any way. That, to me, is about as crazy as believing the words in a 2,000 year old magic book.


Here, I have to disagree with you. The notion that "we're all f-ed" is an isn't true. The more CO2 we keep pumping into the atmosphere, the more f-ed we are. Although we cannot save the climate by reducing/stopping CO2 and MH4 emissions now, if we sharply reduce emissions, we have a shot at being able to engineer the climate.

Although it may have many unintended consequences, we are going to have to engineer the climate to continue to survive as a civilization. The most likely/only band-aid is to have the US Military either fly or shoot sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere in order to reduce solar radiation and temporarily slow down the effects of global warming. We could easily offset the total pollution, as we currently emit 20x the quantity of them needed to cool the atmosphere, except we're dumping them in the lower atmosphere, not the upper atmosphere, where they would have a cooling effect. And if something goes horribly awry, we can stop, and they will be almost completely gone from the stratosphere within 10 years.

I see this climate engineering as an inevitability. There are two problems. The more quickly we start shooting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, the more quickly people with limited understanding/ willingness to understand the issue will start saying "well we fixed it, so we can keep polluting all we want", which is entirely untrue, and would threaten to further de-stabilize the climate system. The second being that the longer we wait to start, the more feedback loops like melting methane and exposing around we might see, and we might lose control completely and end up with runaway warming, or the more aerosols we might have to put into the atmosphere to regain control, and the more unwanted side effects that might have.

There are a lot of things that no one seems to be paying attention to right now in terms of emissions. There's tons of talk of renewable electricity, ultra-efficient vehicles, heating and cooling, and the like, but that's only part of the picture. We can't efficientize and fuel replace our way out of this crisis, at least not entirely. We have to electrify heating and transportation, we have to stop eating so much meat and animal products, which are destroying the planet, and we have to re-think ocean-going vessels and airplanes entirely.



Arcady said:


> Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.


Exactly!



Wil said:


> Except for the occasional ****** butting in to talk about net neutrality, it is one of the most amusing threads I've run across here in quite awhile.


Best comment in the thread yet! 



Wil said:


> OK. You asked. Give me a minute here for a little cutting & pasting; we'll call it "From The Best of HarperVision's Discussion of Net Neutrality":


Aaaaaaand you beat yourself for best comment! 



BigJimOutlaw said:


> The nice thing about science is that our understanding of things can be flexible as new facts are learned. People can also freely say they don't know things. They aren't required to have absolute knowledge, because they accept the notion that nobody has it. "I don't know" does not equal "therefore, God." That is an unprovable logical leap.


This is just the thing. The only reason that Gods existed is because the people of the time didn't have the knowledge and science necessary to explain natural phenomena without them. Look at the Greek gods. They had gods of all sorts of things, like the sea, that we can explain today with meteorological satellites and radar.

Churches today often exist in the US as a community and charity function that no other organization serves, not necessarily entirely as a religious entity, although this varies by region. Around here, middle class white people mostly don't go to church or care about religion in any meaningful way.

The other thing that's annoying is that there is a big prejudice against people who identify as "atheists" in this country. It is hard to identify as an atheist in some circles, so millions of people who are probably actually atheists identify as "christian" even though they don't identify with christianity or practice christianity.



HarperVision said:


> Guess what, I actually respect Darwin and the decision that HE made based on his years of research and knowing BOTH sides and then making an informed decision based on said research. It's basically the same thing Lee Strobel did, but in the opposite direction and the one I happen to agree with.


Darwinism and AGW both have overwhelming mountains of evidence, the other "sides" have nothing. There is no "debate".


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

All of you should get Bill Maher's movie Religious, and watch it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> All of you should get Bill Maher's movie Religious, and watch it.


Excellent idea. I'm going to go watch it now. I love watching Bill Maher on HBO, didn't even realize he had done a movie...


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

lessd said:


> All of you should get Bill Maher's movie Religious, and watch it.


 Haha, thanks for proving my point again. I'm sure that 95% of you posting here use these sorts of things as what you consider your "research", based on the ignorant and immature replies I've read. I think I'll go watch it too, I need a good laugh.

I just don't understand why it has to be a "one or the other thing" with religion and science. I believe much of what we think we know in science today, but I also believe that a higher, unknown to us at this point, power (to me, God) is responsible for said things that we humans research with our science. Do I believe everything in the Bible to be 100% literal truth, probably not because of what I've said, it's been interpreted and written by humans who always screw sh*t up.

In the words of a poster here, in another thread:



> "Not a religious sort here, but miracles indeed do happen, whatever they might be...."


With that, I want to thank all the fellow Christians who've read this thread and left me hung out to dry, being stoned to death in the square known as TCF! (yes Arcady, like the Old Testament folk used to do!  )

God Bless you all, peace out! (Fo' reals this time!)


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Yep, taking insult and injury. Poor souls.
Just as I predicted.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> Haha, thanks for proving my point again.
> 
> )


I not trying to prove or not prove your or anybody's point of view, if I were that good I would go into the preacher business and be on TV asking you all for money.
But I do think you will enjoy the movie, all of you, I saw it a few years ago, it was funny and informative.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> I just don't understand why it has to be a "one or the other thing" with religion and science. I believe much of what we think we know in science today, but I also believe that a higher, unknown to us at this point, power (to me, God) is responsible for said things that we humans research with our science. Do I believe everything in the Bible to be 100% literal truth, probably not because of what I've said, it's been interpreted and written by humans who always screw sh*t up.


It doesn't have to be one or the other, we're just waiting, patiently, for scientific proof to emerge. Presuppositionalism defies scientific principle because science demands evidence. That is just the way it is. It's not an either/or. We're just waiting for the proof.

More generally speaking, while there are lots of theists/creationists in science (or who are at least fans of science), it's interesting when they accept eeeeeeeeeverything science says, except those very specific handful of things that are in explicit contradiction and incompatible with the bible. It's just too much of a convenient hard line to take credibly. They've come up with alternative hypotheses that don't survive scrutiny, but hold their line anyway because the bible comes first in their position. That's not how science is conducted.

But I'm not gonna yammer on with this subject much more. As a closing thought, since it just happened the other night, I thought this was an interesting discussion/debate between a creationist and scientist, if anyone cares.






Of course nothing is resolved but I enjoy seeing people smarter than all of us having a go at it, civilly.



HarperVision said:


> With that, I want to thank all the fellow Christians who've read this thread and left me hung out to dry, being stoned to death in the square known as TCF! (yes Arcady, like the Old Testament folk used to do!  )


Oh snap, playing the martyr card.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)




----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> Haha, thanks for proving my point again. I'm sure that 95% of you posting here use these sorts of things as what you consider your "research", based on the ignorant and immature replies I've read. I think I'll go watch it too, I need a good laugh.
> 
> I just don't understand why it has to be a "one or the other thing" with religion and science. I believe much of what we think we know in science today, but I also believe that a higher, unknown to us at this point, power (to me, God) is responsible for said things that we humans research with our science. Do I believe everything in the Bible to be 100% literal truth, probably not because of what I've said, it's been interpreted and written by humans who always screw sh*t up.


It doesn't have to "one or the other" if people wouldn't take an extreme hard-line literal interpretation to religion and the bible. Christianity can still exist in an educated science-based world if you take science as the truth, and religion subordinate to that science. If you look at the first few hundred years of christianity, it was much more mystical, more like a bunch of hippies sitting around smoking pot than what it later became when the Romans needed a centralized, organized religion and adopted and changed christianity for their own purposes.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Bigg said:


> It doesn't have to "one or the other" if people wouldn't take an extreme hard-line literal interpretation to religion and the bible. Christianity can still exist in an educated science-based world if you take science as the truth, and religion subordinate to that science. If you look at the first few hundred years of christianity, it was much more mystical, more like a bunch of hippies sitting around smoking pot than what it later became when the Romans needed a centralized, organized religion and adopted and changed christianity for their own purposes.


No, you can't do that. If you start applying tests of reasonableness to religious questions, the entire edifice of superstition is at risk. Religion is exactly like science fiction in that sense; it requires a suspension of disbelief in order to be enjoyed.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ej42137 said:


> No, you can't do that. If you start applying tests of reasonableness to religious questions, the entire edifice of superstition is at risk. Religion is exactly like science fiction in that sense; it requires a suspension of disbelief in order to be enjoyed.


Smart answer, but some religious things are incompatible with our countries laws, those have to suspended.
The problem comes down to who is a true believer in any religion, and do true so called believers have the right to break any of the 10 commandants or laws in the country they live in, or commit human rights violations (killing children as an example) in the name of any religion.


----------



## BlueMerle (Jan 10, 2007)

lessd said:


> Smart answer, but some religious things are incompatible with our countries laws, those have to suspended.
> The problem comes down to who is a true believer in any religion, *and do true so called believers have the right to break any of the 10 commandants or laws in the country they live in*, or commit human rights violations (killing children as an example) in the name of any religion.


That is a confusing sentence.

US laws are not base on 'the ten commandants', so it's moot if someone breaks them... with the exception of murder, theft and in some circumstances bearing false witness. (it's not illegal to lie unless you're under oath... then it's perjury.)

I can sleep with my neighbors wife all day long and that isn't illegal. (we're assuming it is consensual)

All the rest falls under various criminal codes and everyone, regardless of religious belief, is subject to that.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ej42137 said:


> No, you can't do that. If you start applying tests of reasonableness to religious questions, the entire edifice of superstition is at risk. Religion is exactly like science fiction in that sense; it requires a suspension of disbelief in order to be enjoyed.


It depends on what you think religion is in the first place. If you have to take it literally- all or nothing- then it will just unravel. If you go back to more of what Christianity originally was, there's a lot more wiggle room.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

BlueMerle said:


> That is a confusing sentence.
> 
> US laws are not base on 'the ten commandants', so it's moot if someone breaks them... with the exception of murder, theft and in some circumstances bearing false witness. (it's not illegal to lie unless you're under oath... then it's perjury.)
> 
> ...


Many religious people do believe in the ten commandants and I sure understand that many of those so called commandants are not against US law, but are only against the laws of certain religious beliefs in their magic books, I was just trying to say that many religious people take short cuts in what they will or will not obey from their magic books IE. Catholics and their contraception views.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Bigg said:


> It depends on what you think religion is in the first place. If you have to take it literally- all or nothing- then it will just unravel. If you go back to more of what Christianity originally was, there's a lot more wiggle room.


I don't want to be insulting, but I suspect your ideas about early Christianity are distorted by 2000 years of wishful thinking.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ej42137 said:


> I don't want to be insulting, but I suspect your ideas about early Christianity are distorted by 2000 years of wishful thinking.


It was a much more mystical and individualized religion than what it later became when the Romans used it to unify their empire.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> It was a much more mystical and individualized religion than what it later became when the Romans used it to unify their empire.


I guess the idea of the Pope started with Saint Peter until the fall of Rome around 470 AD, the church has had a very complicate history. I visited the remains, in Avignon in France, where at one time the Popes resided before the Vatican City became the home of the Popes.


----------

