Interesting. It's also possible that I was misinformed about how the right of way works. Mind you, I'm not talking about stopping in the roundabout to let people enter. I mean that you slow slightly if it's necessary to allow people to enter. You certainly don't speed up to block them, which is what happens in my neighborhood right now.

I also know that no one is going to survive a 3-lane freeway roundabout if people aren't being conscious of the traffic that's entering the roundabout.

I think it's on point.
Doctors rarely tell people forcefully enough that being obese will kill them and make their lives miserable and prone to disease. Not being obese helps your health in every way.

No, it's not a guarantee you won't get sick, a seatbelt isn't a guarantee you won't get hurt in a crash, but it absolutely helps your odds of not being hurt and minimizes injuries when you are.

No, being healthy doesn't mean you can't spread disease, but being health conscious means you would know better, and know how to be safer. If you weigh 500 lbs it's clear health isn't your priority with very few exceptions.

Bill has been saying this for decades....it's like he's suggesting fireproof surrounds for wood stoves. Just because people are burning their houses down in huge numbers now is not a reason to stop advocating for safety, it's more reason to be louder.

Most doctors don't. They nudge, hint, maybe say "if you eat more baby, we're going to have to take your foot" (Simpson's), they don't tell 65 year old women "you weigh 350 lbs, you need to drop 200 lbs now or you're going to die and we aren't going to waste money and effort treating you if you won't lose weight". They should, imo.

Being overweight should be treated like smoking, it's a choice for 99%+, and that choice effects others. Covid proves it, many can't be treated at all because so many have horrible illness, far worse than most other thinner and healthier countries.

Fat acceptance, even fat pride is a thing, there are millions who claim they're obese and healthy, and it's fine to be obese. Take Lizzo as an example.

Full disclosure, I'm not obese, but I am overweight at 5'9" 170lbs.

Moved this to profile pages, better late than never.

I'll try to be brief....and fail miserably I expect.
I accept the fact that some theories I hold will be wrong, and cause failure. At least theories can be tested and discarded when proven false. Yes, some are so engrained it would take TNT to dislodge them, but they aren't unchangeable, beliefs are immutable.

No morality in that claim. Moral excuses might be 1) I minimize any suffering by buying mostly family farmed meats and 2) those lives only exist for human pleasure and substance. If no one ate cows and pigs, they would be extinct nuisance animals. (And chickens rare) If the animal has a nice, pain and stress free life, but in trade that life ends early, as long as the end is humane I'm not bothered. That's life it otherwise wouldn't enjoy at all.
Factory farms don't meet those requirements.
They're tasty is why I eat meat. It might be snide, but it's honest. Yes, I'm obstinate, I like meat, I'm not claiming it the most moral, ethical, ecological, or empathetic thing to do, but if done thoughtfully it's not the worst either.

My meaning with "it's not the worst t thing people do" was to reply to " I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace." with a few other examples of things worse that we will be judged for, not to distract or excuse. I'm not sure how that's a logical falicy. Tens of Billions of animals are killed horrifically for pure greed and not even used as food, that's a disgusting disgrace I could denounce.

I read the WHO study he was referencing and it said no such thing, I told him, showed him, he kept repeating the bullshit lies. I'm not receptive to people who blatantly misrepresent science. I don't rely on any industry produced studies for any decisions, that would be dumb. The study said certain highly processed and preserved red meats had some carcinogens, not any meat at any level is equivalent to two packs a day. My degree is general science, I can read a study.

Oh shit, nutritionfacts.org is Dr Gregor, the one who outright lies about scientific studies, and the one who made the false equivalency between tiny amounts of meat and constant chain smoking, he also loved to misuse "plant based" to mean vegan and claim the studies on plant based (not plant exclusive) diets proved vegan benefits when they really proved a mixed diets benefits. I've been deep down his rabbit hole, and found him incredibly unscientific and dishonest. I don't trust him one bit, sorry.

I've only known a hand full, including the one who introduced me to Dr Gregor, my aunt, uncle, and cousins, and a few here in hippy central where I live. Not one was honest, they acted like it was religion and took statements as gospel with no investigation and were forceful in their insistence that everyone agree.

I once ate fish and thought it was fine. Three years of marine biology cured me of that, so my theories are changed by facts. I promised myself to never learn too much about chicken, pork, or beef because I don't want to know what's in them unless it's broken glass. That's a conscious decision. There is no hell hot enough to scare me away from good bacon. That said, I do care that they have a good life before being harvested.

I'm willing to change behavior and thinking. I previously thought the fda was good at protecting us, I decided I couldn't trust that.

I make some decisions based on MY morality, some on self interest, some on group/global interest, etc. I'm not willing to make any based on someone else's morality, especially if they're pushy.

I have no clue who visits, but this is where I come, so it's where I speak up.

I always make the mistake of thinking people will be logical.

It is impossible to not touch your face outside of the time you are conscious of not touching your face.

Wear a motorcycle helmet or ski mask. Good luck.

Might I add that Voyager 1 accumulated enough data that it became conscious and began searching for it's creator while annihilating all other life during it's quest until it was intercepted by the star ship Enterprise, where upon, it was given a good spanking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ei_2wS0U-w

I am not typical, never have been. I think you know this. ;-)

My brother lied....he invented an invisible friend who "made" him do anything he was caught doing. "Ockie made me do it." I never once tried that.
I did try to lie about some things as a kid, sure, but I sucked at it and always told lies that were easily proven false, and my parents never let me slide. Between the punishments and never getting away with them, I consciously gave up on lying before I started preschool...I just sucked at it, it never came naturally, and it seemed to consistently increase the punishment I was trying to avoid.
Also, it made me dislike myself.

Personally, I am Pro Choice for women to make their own decision on the gestation of biological cells growing in their own bodies up to a certain age of the fetus.

What I don't understand is, are you calling this man pathetic because he "gave two arguments FOR pro choice"? - based on principals laid out by Lincoln in his example?
Or because
Pro Choice doesn't align with your beliefs?

Sorry, you wrap your words up in several ways but you don't come out and say what side you're arguing for so I can't tell the tone or nature of your comments.

I personally don't feel the entity, the biological growth of cells is a person just because it has a heart beat. Does it have consciousness? Is it a thinking being with self awareness? Because I don't remember anything from when I was a fetus. In fact, I don't think the brain is developed at all ...

"not until the end of week 5 and into week 6 (usually around forty to forty-three days) does the first electrical brain activity begin to occur." ~'The Ethical Brain' - The New York Times.

And even then, it's still in development and not a an organ that can contain consciousness.

*dryheave*
You should hang your head in shame spreading that twaddle, even in jest. I cannot believe that person has a job in the sciences.

First claiming a 20 watt charge of energy is our consciousness is absolute nonsense, that's simply the power it takes to run a consciousness, your neural pathways in operation are that consciousness. It's like claiming the electricity from the socket is your computer's operating system, and when your computer crashes all your programs and data are safe somewhere in the socket. *facepalm

Second, he seems ignorant of entropy, the process through which most energy eventually degrades to heat. No distinctive or recognizable patterns are retained in that metamorphosis....heat is heat.

As to these "near death experiences", studies were done because people kept claiming to come out of their body to hover above it and watch it be saved before returning, but when a scrolling lighted message was put on top of the cabinets in multiple emergency and operating rooms, only visible from above, not a single person who claimed to have been out of body ever saw the messages blinking at them, because it's a delusion.

Made me throw up a little there, thanks.

Not always....I just consciously accept that there is no "win" in an argument with my wife.
That doesn't mean I never have them....just that I never win them, even when she concedes (maybe especially when she concedes).
I have often claimed to be intelligent, but I've never claimed I was particularly smart. ;-)

Serious question: Are you consciously blocking out any new information that you're exposed to?

This video's entire point is to bring awareness to a concept that some people claim doesn't exists (or doesn't affect people). Your response: "cool, let me just bury my head in the sand."

Typical conservative.

"Second, as I've pointed out before, the idea that we're seeing an epidemic of false accusations is not supported by evidence."

I am seeing a strong movement to demand that accusations be enough to get people suspended, expelled and fired though. The Canadian Federation of Students has been pushing a campaign to improve campus sexual assault policies. Their plan specifically includes things they don't want any policy to have, including any " SANCTIONS FOR VEXATIOUS, MALICIOUS OR FALSE COMPLAINTS". They sigh an example section from Dalhousie University's sexual assault policy that they believe is wrong and should be removed:
"A complaint made in bad faith shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action against the complainant, which shall be commenced in accordance with applicable disciplinary processes. A bad faith complaint is a complaint that is made with a conscious design to mislead or deceive, or with a malicious or fraudulent intent. "

More insidiously, strong movements across Canada are training the workplace on what sexual violence is. The first 3 levels of sexual violence ALL involve no physical contact and are entirely verbal. When people are manipulating language to make actions seem worse than they are, you are acting in bad faith and I think it should be called out.

" If a woman (or a man) comes forward with a claim of sexual assault, they are entitled to be taken seriously."

Agreed, but lots of people are very much arguing that lives should be destroyed then and there, just to be safe and/or to balance things out finally so men can be victimized too so they know how it feels. We'll even right songs to laugh at them when they complain.

IMO, the real issue here is one of deflection. Trump and his cronies
No disagreement there. I both vehemently disagree with virtually everything Trump says or does. At the same time, still don't like how far the condemn the accused pushes are looking to go.

He totally looked like he lost consciousness.

Short answer, yes.

He, personally, has done severe, possibly irreparable damage to our government and it's safeguards, and the rule of law, has been the most divisive president in my lifetime, a high bar, is driving the very companies he claimed to have saved overseas, like Harley Davidson, is starting multiple trade wars, even with our allies, wasting tens of billions already, and has been mired in criminal and moral scandals since before day negative 45 when he told the Russians he would remove sanctions over election tampering even as Obama was instigating them, well before taking office which is a crime if you don't know.
Trump himself has divided America, intentionally, with his own words and policies. Reporting on those words and policies is not slanderous or fake. If they lied about what he said, Trump would sue for slander/libel like he did over Steele, a case he just LOST. He hasn't, and he won't.

Again, you take the lying convict's word about the evidence and the law over court rulings and fact. I know you won't investigate, so you'll continue to be duped. That's a conscious choice you are making, to be wrong but righteous instead of correct and guilt ridden.
The investigation predated the Steele Dossier, and it was never a key bit of evidence or the cause of the investigation....and it is not some baseless fantasy fabrication like you believe, it beats any Trump speech for honesty and correctness by a factor of 10.

His Twitter is his official policy, they are clear about that. It is almost always bat shit, and is never civil or honorable.

No. I disagree completely.

Paying taxes to support your government is mandatory and not doing so is punishable by law, with the full force of law enforcement backing that up.
Paying tithe and supporting a gang of known repeated, continuous child molesters and their helpers/protectors is a conscious free choice, as is remaining intentionally ignorant of their crimes (if that's even possible).

There's no correlation. It's not a slippery slope at all imo.

Now if you choose to stand up in support of those disastrous government programs, cheering them on and backing their supporters, then you're complicit.

There is a generally held belief that consciousness is a mystery of science or a miracle of faith; that consciousness was attained instantly (or granted by god), and that one has either attained self awareness or has not.

I don't believe any of that. I believe like all things in biology, consciousness evolved to maximise a benefit, and occurred gradually, without any magic or mystery. The closest exurb1a gets to that is when he says at 6:28:

"Maybe evolution accidentally made some higher mammals on Earth self-aware because it's better for problem solving or something"

We need to know what other people are thinking and this is the problem that consciousness solves. If a neighbouring tribe enters your territory then predicting whether they come to trade, mate, steal or attack is beneficial to survival.

Initially this may be done through simulation - imagining the future based on past experience. A flood approaching your cave is bad news. Being surrounded by lions is not good. Surrounding a lone bison is dinner. Being charged by a screaming tribe is an upcoming fight.

We could only simulate another person's actions, but we had no experience that allows us to simulate another person's thoughts. You may predict that giving your hungry neighbour a meal may suppress their urge to raid your supplies but you still can't simply open their head and see what they are thinking.

Then for the benefit of cooperation and coordination, we started to talk, and everything changed.

Communication not only allows us to speak our mind, but allows us to model the minds of others. We can gain an understanding of another person's motivations long before they act upon them. The need to simulate another person's thoughts becomes more nuanced and complex. Do they want to trade, or do they want to cheat?

Yet still we cannot look into the minds of others and verify our models of them. If we had access to an actual working brain we could gradually strengthen that model with reference to how an actual brain works, and we happen to have access to such a brain, our own!

If we monitored ourselves then we could validate a general model of thought against real urges, real experiences, real problem solving and real motivations. Once we apply our own selves to a model of thought we become much better at modelling the thoughts of others.

And what better way to render that model than with speech itself? To use all of our existing cognitive skills and simply simulate others sharing their thoughts with us.

At 3:15 exurb1a referenced a famous experiment that showed that we make decisions before we become aware of them. This lends evidence to suppose that our consciousness is not the driver of our thoughts, but a monitor - an interpretation of our subconscious that feeds our model of how people think.

Not everybody is the same. We all have different temperaments. Some of us are less predictable than others, and we tend to avoid such people. Some are more amenable to co-operation, others are stubborn. To understand the temperament of one we must compare them to another. If we are to compare the model of another's mind to our own, and we simulate their mind as speech, then we must also simulate our own mind as speech. Then not only are we conscious, we are self-aware.

Add in a feedback loop of social norms, etiquette, acceptable behaviour, expected behaviour, cooperation and co-dependence, game theory and sustainable societies and this conscious model eventually becomes a lot more nuanced than it first started - allowing for abstract concepts such as empathy, shame, guilt, remorse, resentment, contempt, kinship, friendship, nurture, pride, and love.

Consciousness is magical, but not magic.