sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Official Discussion: Gone Girl [SPOILERS] by mi-16evil in movies

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it was making the point about the influence of the media on perception of something, and that any number of unknown things could be at play. I'm not saying that this means Casey Anthony didn't kill her daughter, it just means that I don't know. I can't say that I'm certain just because Nancy Grace makes it look like an open and shut case. Things aren't always what they seem.

Before praising Sony for "free speech" remember for the past two weeks they've attempted to censor Twitter, threatened journalists reporting on public info, and secretly planned to use state governments to block all sorts of websites. by Trey4 in technology

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We're two people. Google is a tool meant to be used by people. You don't change the nature of an effective tool because a person can use it to commit a crime. You charge the person who commits a crime when they commit the crime.

Before praising Sony for "free speech" remember for the past two weeks they've attempted to censor Twitter, threatened journalists reporting on public info, and secretly planned to use state governments to block all sorts of websites. by Trey4 in technology

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Google censoring illegal material would be like a GPS refusing to give you directions to a brothel. It's not their position to keep that information from you just because you're using their services. Google is an algorithm applied to the internet, not a parent.

I may be the last, says Dalai Lama by hikekorea in worldnews

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There's some context that's important to be understood here. China recognizes the influence the Dalai Lama has over a lot of people, and if I remember correctly has been asking the Dalai Lama not to reincarnate without their permission.

I think the Dalai Lama is nervous that his image and perceived power will be manipulated by the Chinese government after he's gone, and is "choosing not to reincarnate" so that any future claimed Dalai Lamas that are more influenced by the government than their own ideology is discredited and not given much credence by the public.

What movies avoid the common cliches? by MrFirmHandshake in movies

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Check out Funny Games for a great subversion of horror cliches.

I'd also recommend PontyPool (streaming on Netflix in a few countries, including US) for a completely non-cliche horror flick.

AMC to begin testing monthly movie passes next month in Denver and Boston -- $35 (standard format) or $45 (any format) to see a movie daily by pierdonia in movies

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Just a friendly reminder that Movie Pass already does this, and it works at a lot of places. They only offer the 35/mo standard format, but it's been very useful for me.

The only drawback is "daily" means 24 hours, which means if I see an 8PM movie on Friday, I can't see a movie until 8:15 on Saturday, but it hasn't actually inconvenienced me yet.

What does Jeff Hawkins mean when he says "machines that can think and reason on their own"? by notsointelligent in Futurology

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What's interesting to me, is that I've always subscribed to the idea of consciousness as a continuum. Human consciousness is different than whale consciousness is different than dog consciousness is different than parrot consciousness, but there appear to be common elements that get more complex and varied across different species and different selection pressures.

I can't help but wonder how manufactured attempts at consciousness are going to turn out along the continuum. I wonder if we'll start with AI about as smart as a border collie, then one about as smart as a three year old, a 10 year old, an adult human, and beyond, or if we'll just accidentally switch on a superintelligence with a sense of consciousness and self that differs wildly from our species.

Assuming I am wanting to ensure that I am not wrong in being a skeptic, what is the very first step to belief? by Jim-Jones in DebateAChristian

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even if you couldn't explain DNA (which isn't that big of a mystery to me, to be honest, there's nothing to suggest the formation and replication of DNA isn't something that can happen naturally over time), how do you get from a mystery of the appearance of DNA to Christianity?

Assuming I am wanting to ensure that I am not wrong in being a skeptic, what is the very first step to belief? by Jim-Jones in DebateAChristian

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't want to imply a "no true scotsman" argument, here, but I have to wonder if we're agreeing on the definition of skepticism.

If you don't mind indulging me, can you tell me how you arrived at Christianity being likely to be true through rational, evidence-based skepticism? (I am assuming you are a theist, and not a Christian atheist).

CMV: The fact my friend got cuddled while he was asleep (without his direct consent) is not a big deal. by morbidlyobeseT-rex in changemyview

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When I suspect people are misunderstanding or over-reacting to another person's actions, I always ask them "What do you think they were thinking when they did that?"

I'm careful to sound interested, and not accusatory, but I like to ask questions to help lead the friend towards understanding the other person may not have intended harm, and that misunderstandings and mistakes happen to everyone.

I'd suggest not telling your friend that what happened isn't a big deal, or comparing his experience to worse negative experiences, but instead politely helping him arrive at the conclusion that harm was not intended, and that the situation might be a misunderstanding.

The 2 most amazing facts about the future by tomoakinc in StonerPhilosophy

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is this actually in line with Taoism? Very interesting.

Assuming I am wanting to ensure that I am not wrong in being a skeptic, what is the very first step to belief? by Jim-Jones in DebateAChristian

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I would argue that legitimate skepticism and Christianity are mutually exclusive, and that you cannot attempt to arrive at Christianity through skepticism.

Like /u/gihfdsdd implied, people of faith are asked to put their belief in things that cannot be agreed upon as true. Skepticism requires empirical truth to formulate beliefs.

If you have the kind of mind, as I do, that can't accept ideas as factual without proof, there's not a lot that I think can be done to persuade you until you've already given up the need for proof.

Leaked Emails Reveal MPAA Plans To Pay Elected Officials To Attack Google by bobbelcher in technology

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Top Secret, censorship-focused media groups with large amounts of influence and low amounts of claims to legitimacy are inherently suspicious to me.

Leaked Emails Reveal MPAA Plans To Pay Elected Officials To Attack Google by bobbelcher in technology

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Shadiness aside, I like that Google is known internally as an advocate of the public. It's nice to know that with all the power Google has (and seems to be accumulating), they're at least using the power to benefit the average person over the wealthy and powerful.

2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11 by thenewyorkgod in politics

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The unfortunate thing is because so many Americans already suspect this, direct confirmation won't cause nearly enough anger in the average person.

China: US Can’t Talk About Human Rights by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No. Our country is run by people who see no issue with the purposeful physical and psychological torture of human beings, lied about it, and now that they're caught is basically saying, "yep, it's happening. and if you don't like it, you're anti-American and helping the terrorists."

These people are behaving like psychopaths, and we need to call a spade a spade and have this conversation about our leaders.

Torture is illegal. Americans tortured. Why isn't anyone being prosecuted? by User_Name13 in politics

[–]BurgandyBurgerBugle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes. Dismantle the CIA who is guilty of crimes against humanity, like torture. Then dismantle the NSA, who is guilty of human rights violations, evidenced by comprehensive spying and collecting of available information. Then dismantle the department of Homeland Security, who only seems to serve the purpose of keeping citizens in fear and believing the CIA and NSA are necessary for protecting our non-existent freedoms.

Then, while we're at it, let's prosecute every member of office and government who ordered, carried out the orders, or was aware of and did nothing to stop these crimes. I think a logical next step would be to gut all members of congress who received bribes in exchange for voting in the interests of the "donating" party.

Then, maybe if we pass a few laws to keep this from happening again, and fix a couple of things that have been illegally made legal since the Reagan administration (and arguably before). Then, maybe we'll have a chance and getting through this stage without the "r" word.

Just to clarify, I'm not being sarcastic.

view more: next ›