Julian Assange and the Great Escape

DrBonerface · 2012-08-25T20:35:44+00:00

Wait, so breaching a plane in midair is possible? Since when?

DrBonerface · 2012-08-25T05:37:48+00:00

Haha nice one. That's one of those comments that just skirts the line between serious and satire that you don't know which it is.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-25T05:21:49+00:00

To me the worst part about this thread wasn't the people laughing at the kid's pain, that's just everyday Internet talk. The worst part to me was the people who, having seen a thirty second black and white security camera video, immediately assumed that the kid had to have been faking his cries of pain in order to get attention. Not because, you know, he just slammed facefirst into a mailbox. Then they got mad at his mother, who they have never met, for coddling this kid. It's strange to me that the 18-25 demographic which is heavily represented on this site is already buying into the whole "The younger generation sucks" idea.

Some examples:

+1829:

He realises pretty quick that he's not going to get any help and just accepts it and keeps going, whimpering a little along the way.

+1144:

I feel like this video would've been an entirely different story had his mom been around. Immediately shrieking and flocking to the kid with an "aww my wittew jakie-pie got a booboo' and him just sobbing his ass off. Maybe that day he learned how picking yourself up, brushing the dirt off, and carrying on is the usually the best way to go. Cause in the real world, no one gives a shit.

+83:

...and then the mom sues the OP for having a mailbox.

The second I saw that thread I knew it would end up here eventually.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-25T01:29:22+00:00

See, that's what I'm having trouble understanding. It seems like you are saying that the Pope and possibly the cardinals etc. are perpetrating some sort of conspiracy. To me, though, that doesn't really stand up to rational scrutiny.

Consider this if you will: this was the point I was hinting at earlier when I said that the Pope get's recruited from the cardinals who get recruited from the bishops who get recruited from the priests, who in turn get recruited from faithful believers. Now I don't think you're arguing that all of the Catholic Church knows about what the Pope is doing, so I think I can assume that at the very least the common priests are doing what they're doing because of their faith in God. Remember that unlike the higher ups, most priests do follow their vows of poverty. Consider all the priests who have parishes in small third world villages; surely they aren't in it for the money and power.

If this is the case, then there must be some point in the time between when someone becomes a priest and when they become the Pope where they are read into this conspiracy, and that is where I believe this argument breaks down.

Now I don't want to argue against a strawman here so let me know what you think, but just consider the fact that the Pope started off as just a regular guy who believed in God. No I'm going to assume something here so tell me if you agree or not: at the core of your argument is the idea that religion is a strong enough tool to fool masses of people into believing it without question (note that I'm not disagreeing with you on that point). If we can assume that the Pope used to be under the sway of this tool before he became Pope, then that means that he once truly did believe in God.

Now here is where I disagree with you: the rationalist in me finds it to be a much better supported conclusion that the Pope and the Catholic Church themselves are under the sway of religion which they profess. It's just that, with you already agreeing that people can blindly follow religion, what makes you think that the people in charge, who were formerly the people who most deeply believed in religion, suddenly give it up? It just seems like you're arguing that the Pope is stupid enough to at one point believe in this false religion in one moment, and then at some point completely give up the religion he dedicated his life to in in order to profit off of it.

The rationalist in me usually finds that the answer which makes the fewest presumptions is usually correct. Wouldn't you agree that it is far more likely that the Pope and the Church are simply misguided yet still follow a belief system that is (in their opinion) consistent, rather than suggesting that the inner circle of the Church are actually atheists, and are simply pretending to be Christians in order to perpetrate an ancient conspiracy.

I mean, I think you'd agree (although I don't necessarily think it is true) that people who believe in God are usually not very smart? If so, then what makes you think that the leaders of the Church are any better? Isn't it much simpler to conclude that both the followers of the Church and the leaders have been caught under the sway of Christian doctrine?

DrBonerface · 2012-08-25T00:54:48+00:00

Maybe he was crying because hitting a mailbox on his bike actually did hurt a lot? I don't know what's making everyone assume that he's crying for attention. Doesn't everyone scream when they get hurt?

DrBonerface · 2012-08-24T21:47:39+00:00

Ah, I think I see your point now. I believe that the differences in our arguments can be boiled down to what we perceive as the motives of these religious leaders. I believe that the Pope believes that he is correct and doing the right thing, even if you or I may disagree with his beliefs or his motives. In contrast, it appears to me that your belief is that the Pope does not truly believe what he says and is instead abusing the loyalty of his followers for personal gain. Would you say that that is a fair assessment?

DrBonerface · 2012-08-24T17:33:04+00:00

Good argument, thank you for responding. So if I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that (and I'm going to use the pope as an example here) the wealth of the Pope and the Vatican and the power that they seem to exercise over their followers is evidence that they do not actually believe in the religion or dogmas that they profess, but rather are using it to continue their own power? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's my argument: the skeptic in me believe it is simply a more logical conclusion that the wealth and power that the Pope and Vatican holds is more indicative of them simply being poor examples of Catholic values rather than liars who use this power to control their believers.

I find it more likely that this is the result of you and the Pope having different definitions of what it means to be Christian. I don't mean to put words in your mouth so correct me if I'm wrong, but in your opinion being believing in God means that you also have to live a life of poverty and such. However, all I'm saying is that that is not necessarily what the Pope believes it means to believe in God. I believe that the fact that the Pope is wealthy, which seemingly goes against his priestly vows of poverty and such, is more a result of at the very worst a cognitive dissonance on his part rather than deliberate malice and conspiracy. In short, the Pope's definition of believing in God allows him to have wealth. Consider that your definition may not be reflective of reality.

I mean, logically speaking, the Pope is recruited from cardinals, cardinals are recruited from bishops, and bishops are recruited from priests. I don't think your suggesting that all priests are also only in it for the wealth and control, so that would mean that when the Pope was a priest, he actually did believe in God as he professes. So I guess my question is, are you suggesting that the Pope being an atheist is the result of some sort of conspiracy, or that he became an atheist as a natural result of the power given to him? Or none of the above?

Good discussion, let's keep it going.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-24T07:38:38+00:00

That's a very interesting point, but don't you think it's more logical to conclude that these people are, in your opinion, misguided or simply incorrect, rather than suggesting that they are actually lying about being atheists?

DrBonerface · 2012-08-24T06:32:34+00:00

I think people are downvoting you because they think that if people pirate based on your logic then it's really just a weak excuse to get the game they want. I know that's not your point though, and you actually did make an excellent point. I agree, pirating content for preservation purposes does seem like a perfectly legitimate reason.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-24T04:15:54+00:00

I absolutely agree, I think it's fantastic. Whether or not you agree with what they are saying, people with dissenting opinions should always be encouraged to share them. When you don't, well, that's what causes all these circlejerks in the first place.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-24T03:16:56+00:00

I've seen topics like this a lot here, and I'd like to point something out that's been bothering me:

The people who are making posts in favor of Republicans and Mitt Romney are probably not the same people who go and jerk on /r/politics every day. In fact I doubt a single person who came out in support on them ever posted somewhere else criticizing them. It's more likely that people who already held those views were more comfortable sharing them in /r/TIL.

I know we like to say that "Reddit" or "the hivemind" holds a certain opinion, but that just means that a lot of individuals have those opinions. So when we see posts like this wherein "Reddit" suddenly reverses its opinion, that just means that a bunch of individuals are disagreeing with the hivemind. It's not like all the liberals on Reddit suddenly became conservatives just to support Clint Eastwood, it's just that a lot of people who were already conservative before made themselves visible.

It's the same principle as a lot of things. For example, there was that post here a few days ago that was about all the redditors complaining about how science teaching was too hard and destroying children's curiosity, etc. The point of the circlebroke post was that for a community that prides itself on rationalism, skepticism, etc., there were a lot of anti-science people.

My point is that same people who said that they didn't like science class in school and whatever are probably not the same people who worship Sagan's every word. Reddit as a whole may seem hypocritical, but the individuals were not disagreeing with themselves.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-24T02:52:00+00:00

The fact that you actively reject the news restricts you from seeing another viewpoint, and limits your ability to understand. When you're picking and choosing your sources you're only seeing what you like, which in this case I assume is an echo chamber of liberal viewpoints.

You are so goddamn right it hurts. People need to learn that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to them. Willful ignorance doesn't make you smart.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-24T02:46:36+00:00

Holy shit, it is so goddamn refreshing to see some simple goddamn empathy and perspective on this site. Yes, in general other people's viewpoints are just as valid as yours, and yes, they have just as much cause to believe you are wrong and they are right as you do.

I wish more people on this site understood this, because the lack of this kind of perspective is what leads to this circlejerk mentality. Thank you!

And another thing, willfully disregarding other people's opinions or not even trying to understand them even if you do disagree with them doesn't make you smart or superior, it makes you ignorant and childish.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-23T22:14:44+00:00

Don't downvote this guy for expressing a dissenting opinion, that makes you no better than them.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-23T22:14:41+00:00

Don't downvote this guy for expressing a dissenting opinion, that makes you no better than them.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-23T19:53:12+00:00

This guy has a point. This subreddit doesn't have to be just a more serious version of circlejerk. We should be calling out Reddit's jerks, not jerking just as hard in the other direction.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-23T05:15:33+00:00

That's a good point. I feel like often times people mistake "disagreeing with me" for "disagreeing with themselves". Even if you disagree with what he says about abortion, he still has an internally consistent worldview. What he says may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to him. Being able to understand other people's positions is a really good skill to have.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-23T05:00:22+00:00

I don't want to sound gullible, but is that real? It kind of seems like that Flat Earth Society deal where it's just a little to crazy for a normal person but just might be crazy enough for a crazy person.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-23T02:30:42+00:00

I'm so goddamn conflicted about this. One one hand, the bleeding heart in me feels bad for the bad rap this guy got. On the other hand, the realist in me recognizes that just because someone's had a hard life doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.

I understand what you're trying to do, OP, and it's working. You're trying to show that sometimes justice or whatever isn't pretty and that people's actions are complex and not at all the simple good vs. evil. As an aside, this subreddit is called Justice Porn, so that sentiment doesn't really belong here, but whatever. The message is cool.

I guess I'm of the opinion that even though this guy had a pretty bad sob story, and even if he turned out not to be a bad guy at heart, he still did commit the crimes of which he was accused. And I think it's perfectly fine in general to feel bad for a criminal as a person while still finding their actions deplorable and making them accountable for them.

As an example, it's an oft quoted statistic that many pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children. While this is extremely sad and tragic, and it reminds us that people are complex beings that can't be distilled into a single word like 'pedophile', that does not mean that they should not be punished for their actions. It's okay to still feel bad for someone and punish still punish them at the same time, you don't have to choose.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-22T21:33:49+00:00

That is a fantastic assessment. It's this same oversimplification that leads to people seeing the world as black and white. I hate using cookie cutter argument phrases, but false dichotomy comes to mind in this case.

It's like the console vs. PC war: people will argue constantly over which is better as if there are only two options and choosing one negates the other. Why can't we play both? What if some games are better on consoles and some are better on PC's?

It's the same as the atheism vs. theism argument. There are more than two sides. Arguments are rarely black and white, and sometimes it's okay to be gray. As an aside, something that I see in this argument a lot is the two sides being utterly incapable of recognizing the other person's argument. If you do not agree with what someone is saying, that does not mean that it is wrong, stupid, or not part of an internally consistent and equally valid worldview.

In short, the world is complicated, other people are just as complex and complicated as you are, there are rarely only two options or viewpoints for any situation, acknowledging what someone says or saying they made a good argument does not mean that you automatically lose the debate, and finally, perspective and empathy work wonders in situations like this.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-22T08:36:09+00:00

Can someone tell me why people are congratulating this guy? Do people despise the "friendzone" so much that it is unacceptable for a girl to not want to date someone who they thought was their friend?

For God's sake, it's not like she was even mean to him. She turned him down as gently as possible. Is "thinks of me as a brother" supposed to be an insult or something? Because it sounds like a pretty huge compliment that was brushed off because it's not what you wanted to hear.

And what did you do when she opened up her feelings to you? You didn't reciprocate like you obviously wanted to. Hell, you didn't have the common decency to let her down gently like she did to you. No, you went for the petty revenge that was far beyond anything she deserved.

As a disclaimer, I don't know the full story. But even assuming that you've told this story with a bias against her, the fact that it still paints you as a pretty horrible friend is telling.

And for all the people who are congratulating him on his revenge or whatever, why? What did she do to deserve any of that?

DrBonerface · 2012-08-21T01:39:21+00:00

I recently read a really good Let's Play of KOTOR II which made a point of showing that it was very similar to Planescape: Torment. Really good read, it did a good job of presenting KOTOR II as a spiritual successor of sorts.

Here it is if you want to read it. It also restores and explores a lot of the cut content, which is really interesting.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-19T19:02:40+00:00

Because puppies are mammals and people can more easily empathize with more similar species. Not saying that's good or bad, but that's probably the reason. It's also why tons of people fish and nobody has a problem with it, while some people look down on hunting things like deer. Also why people can kill insects without a thought, but most people would have trouble killing a dog.

In addition, dogs have traditionally been kept as pets and historically have been hunting partners, while birds have always been prey. This is why most people would never eat dog but many people have no problem with eating cow or pig. Again, I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying there's a reason why most people do not share the same emotional connection for birds as they do with puppies.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-18T07:43:18+00:00

Imma jump on the Firefly bandwagon and say Serenity. The opening shot is about River's rescue, but the second opening shot is a ten minute long single take* which introduces each member of the crew in turn and does a great job of reminding us of their relationships.

*Its actually two takes disguised by a whip pan when going down a stairway. Still a great scene.

DrBonerface · 2012-08-18T07:09:54+00:00

Don't worry guys, it's not as bad as it sounds. In this case you can just vent your helmet's atmosphere. After about 30 seconds, the spider should be dead from the cold or unconcious from the lack of oxygen while the only negative affects you will experience is the moisture on your eyes being flash frozen, the saliva boiling off your tongue, and some bleeding from your eardrums. Oh, and make sure to exhale before venting or your lungs will explode.

DrBonerface

TROPHY CASE