>> ^Fairbs:

A creature that needs food to survive ate food.


The nuance was lost on him. Music + Cliche movie scene + unexpectedly clumsy turtle = more than an animal eating food.

Football is the regional term used for the most popular of a family of sports. The term "football" refers to a game that is played on FOOT instead of on horse, which in the past was a necessary distinction.

In places where rugby is the most popular version, football refers to rugby. In nations where American Football is the most popular version (US and Canada primarily) it is known as football. In the rest of the world, which prefers Association football (Soccer is a UK term referring to this specific rule set, the US just uses the term more so it's assumed we coined it) football refers to...well obviously Association football rules football.

Why is it so difficult for the rest of the world to understand that the word "football" is not a name but rather a term to be used as seen fit by a given culture?

btw this also means that the term "Soccer" is both more accurate and more specific when referencing the sport known around the world as "football" and is actually usable around the world without confusion, where as football would mean upwards of 3 different things depending on what country you're in...so why is it dumb to call it soccer?

>> ^VoodooV:

The only problem I have with the 2nd amendment is that it says nothing about being trained or being competent with a firearm
Any insecure idiot who longs for the days of the wild west with delusions of grandeur can buy a gun, but it says nothing about whether or not they can use it well.
If everyone had the same training and skill as that cop I doubt I would have a problem with excessive gun ownership.
But the odds of those idiots actually using a gun well is actually pretty low and in such a case, they'd be more of a liability than a benefit.
It's just like that sift of the old dude who happened to have a gun when the internet cafe he was at was being robbed. He fired it indiscriminately regardless of the nearby bystanders. Fucking asshole was lucky not to have hurt the bystanders instead of the criminals.


I don't think you would have many gun enthusiasts complaining about a show of competency in safety before owning a gun, because most enthusiasts are emphatic about this themselves...the cost and red tape may become an issue for some but eh...can't please everyone.

Did you watch the video of the old man? I just rewatched it and based on the 2 main camera angles of the video it was safe to shoot within the building (you could not easily account for people on the other side of the wall/door). When he opens fire he is almost even and a couple feet to the side of a bystander, but according to the 2 views the only people in the radius of where he fired were the robbers.

Not only that, but he had decent form (2 handed grip with bent knees and squared shoulders) and paused his movements when he fired, all of which point to someone experienced with the firearm. If anything I'd say he showed great poise for an untrained person.

Some nice hidden gems in there, like the doors reference

I do think that poking fun at the bible, and the old testament for that matter are seen as more clever than I feel they really are. I mean religious people could make endless videos about some of the most brilliant men in history PROVING to the world something that we now know to be not quite right, and then using them to make the point that science changes its mind and has inconsistency too (is matter points or waves people?)...but what would be the point?

Harping on the lack of logic in a book written by and for people in antiquity is a waste of time, even if the book was divinely inspired why assume that it would be any different than all the other books/literature at that time? If a prophet spouted off things about big bangs and everything being made up of tiny dots that sometimes acted like waves back then...he would have been laughed at or burned!

>> ^Confucius:

A cat would look at the toy, then look at you, then pee on your couch for daring something so stupid and then walk over to its food bowl and force you to feed it on command.
>> ^AeroMechanical:
What would it look like for a cat? Would it be exponential like I originally figured if my data were more accurate? Are psychologists actually scientists, or are they just pretending?



You're right, that's exactly what mine did before I tossed him out the door to fend for himself and got a dog that actually appreciated his privileged life!

>> ^Sagemind:

Never - Ever Purchase in-store warranty.
In-store warranty is just a gimmick add-on sale (and cash-grab)for the store. 99% of the time, the product's own warranty or the general store policy covers any defect or incidental damage to may occur.
Don't waste your money!


Warranty, replacement, and service plans can all be different and do different things. I used to work at a national computer retailer that made most of it's profit off various replacement and warranty programs so I've dealt with them quite a bit.

In my experience, in store warranty programs are no different than the manufacturer ones, and people tended to buy them for 2 or 3 years on items that only had a 1 year or less manufacturer warranty. The good ones would extend off the end of the manufacturer warranty, the bad ones would just overlap with it (theyd have redundant coverage the first year).

Replacement plans however can be quite useful and even beneficial. The company I worked for actually had to change it's policy for employees because it felt the system was too easy to game for us at discounted prices. The beauty of these is that they DO tend to cover accidental damage or wear and tear, which most warranties wont. They are usually short, 1 or 2 years and can be pricey if they cover stuff like screens or battery replacement.

Depending on your honesty or luck, replacement plans can be a way to replace or even upgrade your items for a modest price (for example I get an old headset replaced through a plan but I end up with a newer headset, and i just pay another $10 or so to cover the new set...rinse and repeat every couple of years).

For the few years I worked at that retailer, I was able to keep almost all of my hardware up to date for 10-50 bucks a piece every couple of years (at that time it included stuff like my video card and optical drives)!

>> ^dannym3141:

Firstly, i'm not happy with his or the writer in the story's understanding of the words "quantum" and "dimension". Especially the former. And secondly i'm questioning that any ..."quantum effect"... occured because he made a huge assumption that the umbrella man was involved. I can think of a billion reasons why it might have happened (however unlikely).
This is an interesting story so i have no idea why he started with the quantum spiel. Heartwarming story about a conspiracy theorist who was cured


The way i read it is, if you understand some about physics you may think you know the universe and it all makes sense. However if you start to look deeper and at the minor details of the universe, aka the quantum level, things start to become much less logical and intuitive. Therefore you must dig hard to find the true nature of things at this level, and often times the truth will be more strange or surprising than you ever imagined.

When people were first discovering that there was a charged particle orbiting a nucleus do you think they assumed it was actually a cloud or probability and not a constant circling point? Of course not that would seem absurd at first, much as it would be absurd to think that the umbrella man was a guy protesting actions by JFKs father!

If taken as what it'd be like when war really broke out, this is interesting.

If only viewed as propaganda...an important message was lost.

>> ^bareboards2:

Bible. Bullshit. Same paragraph.
Snit fricking fracking fit.
He used profanity. He didn't phrase his argument in a way in which you wanted him to phrase it.
So what? The guy cusses. He used shorthand to make his point. I understood him perfectly.
You want context? Read anything he has ever written. Watch more than two minutes of any video. The guy has a potty mouth.
And?
The question becomes why can't you hear the LOGIC of his statements? Well, no question really. This is why I have chosen not to engage in any protracted argument about this. YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO HIM. There is no point in arguing when you never heard him to start with.
You heard Bullshit blah blah Bible. Ginger Ginger Ginger, my man.
If you don't know what I mean by that, read my little anecdote above about Gary Larson.
I will grant you that there are some people who can rightly claim that he attacked their faith.
They are the persons out there who stone women for not being virgins on their wedding nights, who don't mix fibers, who refuse to eat shellfish or pork.
They exist.
Super Orthodox Hassidic Jews. Extremely conservative Muslims. A tiny tiny subset of Christians.
But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them.
Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger.
Damn. And here I am arguing anyway. Damn it.
@dirkdeagler7. Now I am REALLY done.


TLDR: I actually agree with his overall sentiment so you are OUTRIGHT wrong in saying I did not listen to him, you in fact do not listen to other people it seems.

Now you really do sound like the people you are criticizing. You say I dont listen yet you ignored the fact that i said, in so many words, that I agree with his overall message in this segment (as I said I'm not against the gay lifestyle, rights, or marriage. I also said sexual preference is no one elses business which means I disagree with bullying or ostracizing homosexuals). I never criticized the LOGIC in his statements merely the manner in which he gave them and the context (this goes beyond his lecture topic and includes the fact that these are HS students at a lecture about bullying).

Not only did you not listen and create an argument that is apparently at someone else other than me (i actually had to double take to make sure this was directed at me...full honesty), but you go on to drop these gems:

"But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them."

"Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger."

At this point Im actually feeling badly for picking on you and stupid for arguing with you. It's apparent that your argument and stance are not processing anything anyone has said in this comment thread...it shouldn't be a surprise now that I realize you posted the vid to begin with.

So here you are: disregarding fact (the apologies by him and the organizers), dismissing and attacking any opinion that is counter to your own, twisting and misinterpreting (or just not listening) to what I'm saying and then disagreeing with me and using laughable attempts to belittle me and my thought process, and using wide based and unfounded arguments/beliefs (ie my quotes above) to prove your point

You sound just like the people you seem to hate on, just on the other side of the coin and you sit on your high horse unable to see this very basic possibility...that you might be wrong in this matter.

>> ^bareboards2:

It was a journalism conference on bullying.
The bible is used to justify bullying gays.
This SNIPPET out of CONTEXT addresses that portion of his longer talk.
That, my friend, is context.
He only called out the hypocrisy of quoting the pieces of the bible while ignoring others when you want to justify hating on the gays.
It is tiring as all get out to STATE THE OBVIOUS over and over again.
Now I am done with you.
@dirkeagler7


Sigh I thought I was done as well. Although his commentary on the misuse of the bible by some to justify bigotry and hate and how damaging that can be to gays and Christians alike DOES have merit...you're using context to justify someone stepping out of line with his methodology in said context.

When the organizers denounce it and he in a way apologizes for it, how can you still maintain that he was justified in the timing and manner of which he broached the subject.

If his main point in this 3min segment was to show that using the Bible in a direct way to justify ones behavior has proven to be erroneous or unreasonable, he could easily have done so in a way that didn't belittle the topic at hand. A simple "as we have seen people have attempted to use the bible to justify slavery, stoning, and other concepts that society has now dismissed, who is to say that its stance on homosexuality should also be revisited. blah blah"

Instead he opened with "the Bible is bullshit" and yet you staunchly support his method and criticize anyone who thinks that this guy went a bit over the top. You my friend are exhibiting similar behaviors to the religious nuts you seem to want to criticize so readily...and that is MY opinion.

>> ^bareboards2:

Oh, I understand everything. I just choose to not argue with someone who can't think clearly, @dirkdeagler7
Bullshit. Bible. One paragraph. Equals snit fit.
Ignore all the words inbetween.
You talk about context but don't apply your own logic.


Perhaps if I said he was criticizing their faith in addition to their stance on homosexuality you would disagree less?

I'm the one not thinking clearly? You've ONLY given your own opinion of MY assessment and have not used a single argument or comment to refute anything I've said or to give your own opinion with regards to the things I touched on. Since you're apparently far more enlightened than I am, please explain to me what was the ultimate point of this 3min. commentary (keeping in mind that the beginning and end of the video clearly indicate it was a small piece of some larger lecture he is giving).

I'm not in the mood to be trolled by someone that criticizes my clarity of thought or my understanding of context and logic yet uses none himself.

To be clear I've only commented on the context and seeming POINT of what he was saying and how he said it. I did not go into whether I agree or disagree with him did I? But since you're obviously trying to imply I'm an unreasonable Bible-thumper let me declare my religious stance just for you.

I am a non-practicing christian with a very loose tie to organized Christianity. I do not believe the bible is direct truth and I probably know more about cosmology, the big bang, and science than even most science enthusiasts because I love and respect science and knowledge. I'm not an opponent of gay rights or gay marriage and I believe that sexual preference is no business of anyone but ones self.

I personally would not have walked out that day. I also would have lost respect for someone who takes a benign opportunity to discuss a topic with other enthusiasts (journalism) to parade his/her own personal opinion in a forum that was not intended for this purpose.

>> ^bareboards2:

"It is very apparent that he is not criticizing the stance on homosexuality by Christians but their faith out right."
No. It is not apparent, @dirkdeagler7.
Ginger Ginger Ginger.


Someone above already mentioned that slavery as it was understood and talked about in the bible was not the same as the slavery he is implicating. Did he broach the topic in an unbiased way or in a way that supported his already established argument about it being bullshit?

Also explain to me how stoning, slavery, or virginity before marriage have ANYTHING to do with journalism or gay rights? Unless of course you're using them to attack the validity and stances of Christianity. I would argue his use of the word bullshit and his attitude towards those who walked out that day are evidence of his stance on the faith itself. He clarified in his statement after about "the behavior and not the person" aspect however such clarifications are difficult to interpret as far as sincerity and the intent he had the day of the speech.

Also, if you the type of person that can only read the lines being spoken and can't understand the context, tone, attitude, and reaction of someone to help you to understand what they're communicating...then it's no surprise to me that you disagreed with my assessment of the situation. However it does nothing to give me confidence in your opinion of the situation as you saw it either.

Was this a convention or lecture about the validity of religion or Christianity? Was it a lecture about how religion has impeded the gay rights movement? The title indicates it's a JOURNALISM convention which means that anyone launching into an anti-religious agenda is already in a questionable position. Bully or Hero or Awesome are merely labels people will apply based on their personal beliefs on the topic of religion/homosexuality.

Please note that he does not restrict his criticism of religion to homosexuality, so even making an argument that it is relevant because of his personal life or the topic of religion/sexuality/journalism isn't completely kosher. It is very apparent that he is not criticizing the stance on homosexuality by Christians but their faith out right.

In a convention full of HS students, he calls a book and religion bullshit, would you all have said it wasn't bullying if he said that Islam and Muslims were bullshit? What about anything else people strongly believe believe which are social/cultural choices? What if he was saying that people who think women should not be beaten are bullshit and some battered women walked out...is that bullying?

In my eyes he abused his moment to speak about topics that all attendees volunteered for to push a personal agenda and he did it in a confrontational and heavy handed manner. Students who did not come to get a bible lesson from someone in a journalism convention walked out, shame on them right? Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, you just sound ignorant if you say that what he said is completely understandable/respectable given the audience and context.

>> ^ForgedReality:

Never heard of these guys. Therefore, they haven't made it.


Sounds like a personal problem, don't put that on them!

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Tyson is just plain wrong here, he says:
"40% of scientists are religious, so this notion that if you are a scientist, your'e an atheist, and if you are religious, you're not a scientist, is just empirically wrong"
Well, those of us who do say there is a conflict between science and religion have never framed the problem that way, the mere fact that there are religious scientists out there isnt evidence of a non-conflict anymore than the fact that a nazi could marry a jew. People can hold 2 or more conflicting views at the same time, we all do it all the time.
First of all, lets look at that "40%" number, it really depends on which poll or survey you look at. Those surveys who asks questions like "Do you believe in a personal god" usually end up in the sub-20% area of "religious" scientists, but if you include people who answer yes to questions like "are you a spiritual person" then maybe the number is closer to 40%.
So I really think 40% is really stretching it in favour of Tysons view here, but I'll let it go, lets say its 40% then, fine. Whats the same number in the general public? 41% 43?. No. its like 90%, right? So what happened to the 50% difference here? Did "No conflict" just happen to them? They just so happened to learn about science and nature, and via a sheer bloody coincidence, the number of religious people dropped by over one HALF???!!
No conflict my ass.
Of course there is a conflict. Tysons own inflated number even shows it directly.
But even if his inflated number was 100%, that ALL scientists were religious, there would still be a conflict, because faith and science are fundamentally different ways of approaching information and knowledge. In fact, they are, by definition, the opposite of eachother. Science can almost fully be described as "A complete absense of faith" and vice versa. If you've got even a hint of faith in your science, you've contaminated the results. Period. Similarly, if you take a hint of science, even at the level of a curious 5-year old, and apply it to the claims of faith, they immediatly start to look preposterous.
No conflict my ass.


To say there is no form of "faith" in science is misleading as well. If you're an avid follower of the science world, how could you be blind to the number of areas where we hold things to be accepted/true that are impossible to prove (outside of complicated math or computer models)? The most obvious example would be a many worlds/dimensions view, so any string theory borders on requiring "faith" to accept. Anything beyond the atomic level is a combination of interpreted observation and applied mathematics that we'll never be able to observe/prove first hand, in a sense we have "faith" that we're correct and have yet to find a reason to break that "faith" but if it happens we accept our "truth" to be not true. People had faith in newtonian physics being a true predictor/theory and we found it to not be the case after all.

I'm not attempting to compare the validity or justifiability of the 2 different flavors of faith. But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and there are things we believe and treat as true in science that we only know to be true in the ways we can measure them, and those ways sometimes contradict themselves still! Imagine the wave-particle duality and the contradictions in quantum theorys and Einsteins relativity...both of which we still use today (hell we still use newtonian physics in schools).