Never mind

Not a omitted scene, it's a little over 9 minutes into the film. The copy I own at least. Just watched that much of it to be sure I hadn't confused it with another, similar scene. Same one. Great clip though.

Fair enough, as I said I hadn't followed it in detail and less so at the beginning than more recent events. At the time I was subscribed to Watson and saw the vid that started this when it was first posted. Don't remember her ever saying who but later Dawkins name came up in the debates and it sounded like that's what they were saying. Maybe they were wrong, or I read it wrong, long ago so hard to say for sure. Regardless, I never expected it to be a debate a week from then let alone many months later.

I'm no fan of atheism+ and that in spite of the fact that I do support most of their claimed causes. I just don't like the censorship and banning, the very conflation of religion with social causes that we've been fighting against for years, or the 'with us or against us' attitude I find when I look to see what all of the fuss is. noelplum99 (among others) has a sourced and detailed playlist of vids explaining his objections, long but it covers a lot of ground. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLl8YBXeamXSI4rnZraJTu3RDXnkImNwD7

Rather than a double post I'll reply to the statement by VoodooV above here as well. VoodooV says...

"This video is confusing, it doesn't really introduce itself or the problem very well."

I'm not subscribed to anyone directly involved in the fights so don't really have a horse in the race and haven't followed every detail. But in a nutshell... many months back at a conference a woman in an elevator was made uncomfortable by a man, man turned out to be Richard Dawkins. People took sides and much drama ensued.

Freethought blogs took on Thunderf00t as a writer and he expressed opinions which pissed off some of the others at the blog. More people took sides, more drama ensued and Thunderf00t was asked to leave.

And in the middle of this those who took the more (to them at least) 'feminist' view decided to start a new group, atheist+, even they seem to admit these days that the launch of the idea was ham handed and more confrontational than it needed to be and according to them it's all just a misunderstanding. According to their critics it's understood just fine, the critics just don't agree. Yet more people took sides and yet more drama ensued. And here we are.

My favorite comment on the whole mess was probably a post by TheMudbrooker at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLMy6zBft4s Can't say that I agree with every word of it but the end at least seems on point for my view. If they need a group to tell them what to do, a social structure, go back to church where they belong and leave the rest of us alone. It's hard enough as it is to get people to understand that atheist mean "not theist" and nothing more without these people confusing the issue. Regardless of any other opinions anyone might have about them for other reasons. I don't approve of mixing religion and politics and it's no more defensible to mix a lack of religion with politics. Separate debates even if they are both worthy on their own merits. It's not helpful.

>> ^smooman:

injustice does not a police state make.


No, but having more of your citizens under police supervision than any other nation in the world damned well should. It's not even debatable, it's a matter of public record, our own and international as was sourced from both our own records and international above. How in the world do we figure that the nation with more of its citizens under police supervision than any other in the world isn't a police state?

The term Orwellian comes to mind. It's built slowly over the years so we didn't notice, it's us so we don't want to admit it about ourselves, but that doesn't change the fact that those are the facts.

The idea that they, and many others, have it worse I wouldn't argue for a second. But rather than say that it doesn't apply to us I'd think that we're talking more matters of degree. We've got a larger percentage of our people under direct control of the criminal justice system than any other nation so the term police does seem accurate in that sense. They've got goons that will kill you instead of lock you up. Sure, they get locked up too, but I'm not sure the police as such are their problem so much as the death squads and such are. Terrorist state for them perhaps? Something else in other cases. But for us, sure, police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

In 2009 some 3.1% of adults were under correctional supervision, in custody, parole or probation. In "2008 more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States were in prison or jail". This has kinda been a pet project of mine since I was a kid, there's no nation out there with more of their people under police supervision. I don't disrespect others at all. I just tend to call it what it is. Perhaps the term police state isn't the right one for them, rather than it being the wrong one for us.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^MrFisk:
Second, this is what happens in police states.
In a police state, you wouldn't hear about it. But yeah, I think these cops have kinda missed the point of policing.


We're the most imprisoned nation in the world, both per capita and in raw terms and that's been a fact since the Clinton administration. If the more than a decade long title holder for most imprisoned nation in the world isn't a police state, then exactly what is it?

International Centre for Prison Studies
http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php

>> ^renatojj:

There are no winners in this sham of an election, they are both the same in terms of policy, they both suck.


I don't disagree with that. I don't like where we tend to put the blame though, on the politicians and such rather than on ourselves. It's our own damned fault.

TV News used to do some investigative journalism, and it used to be a loss leader for the networks and done for a public service to earn them the right to the frequencies they were offered free of charge. But with 60 minutes and others of the sort the networks learned they could turn a profit and examine more personal issues then with Crossfire and others of the sort they lost even the public service requirements which they had on broadcast.

From Vince Foster murder allegations to blowjobs, 911 conspiracy theories and Swiftboating, death panels, foreign born, communist, socialist, we took it all in and never changed the channel or turned off the TV, and it DID shift our votes and opinions.

The fault is with us. We bought all of the deregulation arguments which allowed our current media and corporate system, we kept electing people who would do it some more even as the impact of our prior choices should have been getting more clear, and we kept responding to and watching ever more extreme and confrontational "news" shows and ads. Any politician who even tried to play nice, honest, and so on was simply steamrolled over and we never bothered to notice. And now we complain that we got the system we asked for.

No argument at all, both parties and the whole system these days sucks. And it's our own damned fault. We watched the shows, we voted them in, then reelected them, we echoed every conspiracy theory and accusation, and we never demanded better. We had every opportunity to see it coming and people have been warning us about it for years. We just couldn't be bothered to care.

This came out on the 12th, it's been days.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-12/politics/32633322_1_bain-capital-mitt-romney-financial-disclosure

"But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s 'sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.'

"Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings."

And the source of this info, from the same article.

"Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time."

I don't know about you, but sole stockholder, chairman of the board, president and CEO with 100% ownership and control sounds to me like he might have had something to do with it. Even if he was in a coma he had legal ownership and responsibility for it. The "I wasn't there" argument is a bit thin, and if he gave different info at different times between FEC and SEC filings he may have committed a crime.

I think American culture is insane for thinking that keeping dogs outside is cruel." "Whats cruel is keeping them indoors. Its like a prison."

For those who restrict them when conditions aren't suitable, either in or out, I'd agree. Mine go in and out as they please. The average summer daily high temp in this area is near 100 degress F, insulated is the last thing they need and an air conditioned dog house is kinda out of the question. They ask to come in and they are allowed. They ask to go out and they are allowed.

As long as you pay some attention to them and don't neglect them like too many do it's all good. My reaction was more to the idea that they shouldn't be in, it wasn't a suggestion that that's the only place they belong.

>> ^gtjwkq:
What are they doing indoors!?


And what the fuck is wrong with them being indoors?

I've got myself a 115 lb or so Shepherd mix and a 50 or 55 pound Australian Cattle Dog, or Blue Heeler around here. Used to have a 120 lb Black Lab and a 55 or 60 lb Pit Bull/Blue Heeler mix as well. All indoor dogs as much as they wanted to be. They ask when they want in and asked when they want out. If I sit on the floor the Shepard mix sits in front of me then rears up, throws himself back in my arms and expects me to catch him like a baby or something, and so far I always have. He wants to be a lap dog too now that he's seen the smaller one do it.

Why have a dog in the first place if you're just going to leave it out in the weather and never see the thing? They make better pets than lawn ornaments.

Edit to remove most of what I was saying, I find that I don't give a shit anymore. And I doubt anyone else does either.

I logged in here a bit ago because two videos were just posted on YouTube that are worth sifting, but I find myself not caring at the moment. If anyone wants a couple of good science vids on dosage and risk as it relates to vaccines parts 1 and 2 are at the following links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKujq-TcJLM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXHwmzCr_0o

Later.

"But most of all it's a collection of people of all kinds. A majority of the nazis were not so unlike you and me. This is important to remember if we don't want to repeat history.

In that vein a set of videos I watched not too long ago was "The Nazis A Warning From History" which is a 6 part (50 minutes each part) documentary which explores who they were and how they got there. One of the biggest aspects that struck me was the same as what you mentioned. They weren't so different than we are, it could happen here too.

I thought I saw one sifted here some time back but don't see it in a quick search, but it's worth a Google web search for since I'm sure I watched most of it there.

I voted to allow him back. If anyone cares why (I'm not sure why they would, I wouldn't) I can explain in more detail, but for now I'll just say it's been a year and he did contribute before he blew up. I don't want the angry choggie who was banned back, but the guy I knew a year before that was ok and I could deal with him. If the angry one came back instead it's not a big trick to ban him again, plenty of you can do it at need. I don't see a real reason not to give it a chance and see what he has to say for himself, which one shows up.

I kind of liked the guy, but I like all kinds of odd people such as Blankfist and others as well, no accounting for taste I guess. Make me smile and I'm easy I'll leave it at that for now.

I hope you have better luck getting them to pay you than I did. I ran a web page for a couple of years and sold a number of books for them, never saw a dime of it myself though. In spite of writing several times to complain and them acknowledging that they owed me. They just kept running me through this pointless loop of suggesting that I check my payment options then ignoring me when I told them we'd already had that conversation until I got tired of trying.