Interesting that Maher thanked / congratulated Jillette for voting for Hillary, but didn't note that he outspokenly did so as a "vote swap" thing where he (in an "important state" re Electoral College) voted for Hillary in return for a friend (in a meaningless / foregone conclusion state) voting for Gary Johnson.

I think that is a fine way to mildly game the system, which is more than mildly broken with the idiotic Electoral College. On the other hand, I think it is fine (honorable even?) to vote your conscious and vote for a third party candidate that has no actual chance of winning, even if you're in a tightly contested swing state.

But my favorite bit is Jillette talking about potential benefits of the Trump presidency. "Trump as a cautionary tale" is actually a very real thing, that will actually have long-term benefits. Whether or not those long-term benefits outweigh the short-term disaster definitely remains to be seen.

I don't care who is producing the video - It needs to bee seen and understood by soooooo many people - I think it's a step forwards in social consciousness. I promote this message because I agree with it, and because this stuff needs to be pounded into some people's heads in as many forms as they can come up with.

That talk must rip the guts out of every parent that has to make it. Children should not have to suffer the impact of ignorant people.

I find it much more sad that people are willing to delude themselves with placating mythos that can't stand the slightest critical examinations than I find the fact that there's almost certainly no god(s) by any definition. Lack of a supreme being is not a scary thing to me in the least, but a capricious, judgmental, incomprehensible, vengeful god ready to cast immortal souls into hell for eternity over small rule infractions is horrifying.

Reality is scary. I get why people would hide their heads under the safety blanket of religion(s), I just disagree that it's any more useful against reality than hiding under a sheet is against home invaders. It might make you feel better because you can't see them, but that's all (unless they are as dumb as the bugblatter beast of Traal, who thinks if you can't see it, it can't see you).

I feel bad for your uncle, who it sounds like believes in god out of a fear instilled in him as a child. Consciously, it sounds like he understands it's an irrational belief, but fear makes people do irrational things all the time. Fear is the mind killer.

Just because you have the right of way does not mean you are safe.

If you pause at the 12-second mark you can see the biker is going 80mph. Is the speed limit 80mph? Leading up to the accident, he's passing other cars like they are standing still. Going much faster (or slower) than traffic around you always increases your risk.

He's traveling too quick for conditions, or even for his own reactions and brakes.

Reddit thread about him: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/6cj4i8/motorcycle_got_cut_off_on_la_freeway/dhv4h38/

The accident is the fault of the car that pulled out, but this biker could have avoided the accident altogether if he had slowed down to comparable speeds of the traffic around him.

But what would he do that for? He's a youtube asshole who took down other videos of him being an asshole who now has one of his vids go viral to the point that he makes money off it. Insurance will cover the repairs to his bike.

Look at how he drives: https://streamable.com/jewxu

He's a cocky asshole who instigates problems on the road.

So yeah, the car that pulled in front is technically at fault. That doesn't make this guy some kind of angel. It's possible he consciously allowed himself to hit the car....

I don't want to imply that this was the motorcyclists fault, because it wasn't, but that was a shit-ass reaction time on the emergency braking. You can see him roll off the throttle and grab the brake as soon as he sees the car moving over, which is good, but then it's clear the car is moving into the carpool lane and... nothing... he just keeps rolling forward...

At 0:20.5 he clearly identifies the threat, by 0:21.0 the car is in his lane, he's off the throttle, and his fingers are on the front brake, and then... he doesn't do anything... just keeps rolling at the same speed... rolling... rolling... he doesn't squeeze the front brake until well over a second and like 100 feet later around 0:22.25 when he's barely 20 feet behind the car, and even then he doesn't brake particularly hard at all.

I moto-commute on this same road and shit like this happens every single day, it happens so often that you should expect it to happen every time and react accordingly. You just have to be way better prepared for it than this. There was plenty of time for him to simply brake and avoid that guy. Plenty.

Actually, the video is about manipulation.

But yes, he's kind of dumb. And I'm not saying that because I disagree with his politics (hell, I don't even know what he truly believes). There are plenty of conservatives that I think are brilliant. It's just very obvious from hearing him talk that Trump is dumb. The vocabulary of a middle-school kid, the lack of knowledge about history an adult should posses (let alone the President), lack of intellectual curiosity, lack of self-awareness, etc.

He's extremely confident and arrogant, and this has helped him succeed. I know people like that from my childhood. You think they're so stupid they wouldn't even graduate high school, but they somehow end up successful.

They bet big because they don't question themselves, so they go all in, and sometimes they win. Meanwhile, a lot of extremely smart people constantly doubt themselves, are too self conscious, etc. to make any bold moves.

But of course when you bet big, you lose sometimes too. And we've seen Trump lose a BILLION dollars in a boom economy in the fucking CASINO business.

"When you have an established, scientific, emerging truth, it is true whether or not you believe in it."

That is a basic statement of reason that many Americans cannot concede.

Most of us believe that basic facts about the universe, like where it came from, what causes consciousness, and if mortality is real can be asserted without evidence, and no one can ever tell you differently.

And if that's the case with the biggest questions, then certainly something less profound like "how does carbon affect the climate" is a matter of belief as well.

Transporters are creepy anyway.

"Yes. You will cease to exist, but we will create an identical copy of you somewhere else, so needn't worry!"
"But my consciousness will be transported right? Into the new body?"
"Errrrrrrrr. Maybe!"

The only tragic death is a death in ignorance. One of the only things that kept me from taking my own life at one point was that there was and still is so much personal ignorance to overcome. As long as I remain ignorant and capable of learning from it, may I live on -- when my brain ceases to learn from my mistakes, only then should I die -- so like 1000 human years? How about all consciousness merge into one instead?

Lol. That's the funniest shit I've read all day.

Your and my definition of destroy must be very different.

It was YOUR contention that any argument "followed" rather than preceded. If you don't want to be held to a claim, don't make it. Funny, that's the same as any good atheist would argue.

I wrote "any coherent arguments". I was quite specific. His "arguments" are a rambling stream of consciousness with a few statements that don't support any ideas to form a coherent argument.

Now here's where you fucked up big time: "you Trump supporters". Get ready to eat a bag of dicks because you got that wrong. I'm not. Buy them here https://www.amazon.com/Bag-Of-Dicks-Sent-Anonymously/dp/B01GKEUY1Y

"when given a cogent argument" bwhahahahahaaha. Yeah, he's not cogent.

"against your claims" bwahahahaahahaa. What claims did I make (besides Jim Jefferies not presenting an argument)?

" you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"" Bwhahahahahaa. This doesn't cover your mistake. You made a claim. I held you to it and pointed out that even if I didn't hold you to it you'd still fail. You're the one focusing on that point.

"when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit." Bwhahahaahahaa. Except they didn't. You can say it's a cogent argument but that doesn't make it true. FFS I provided the transcript - it's right above - with no coherent/cogent arguments in it. I'll give the concession here that your standard for cogent/coherent may be lower than mine. "the excellent retort" is not excellent. It's a great example of someone with not much to say. It's verbal diarrhoea of someone who can't immediately think of a good retort.

Get over it mate. Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian who doesn't present any good arguments in this discourse. He's great at shutting down his opponents by cutting them off with vitriol and bullshit but that's about it.

Oh, and Piers Morgan is a dick. Lol, how handy, you can add him to the bag your eating.

This segment is so short that unless you go and watch the whole thing (which I haven't) you're basically making an educated guess about what they're even arguing about.

I don't know why you're so desperate for Jim to be right. Every argument against Trump and his policies is not automatically cogent, coherent, correct, etc., even if one hates him.

Lastly, Godwin's law. He loses.

PS - This is getting boring. Unless you can assure me that you're non-partisan, and follow through with it in your arguments, I'm not willing to further discuss this with a proverbial pigeon.

While I respect many of them, I don't take assertions like that for granted without evidence that it's true, not just an assumption. The pew research didn't have a study about religious extremists correlating with insanity in some religions and not others....I looked, but it did have an answer to your question of why Arab Muslims are more prone to extremism, severe lack of educational oportunity.

No, all religions are not equal, but they share certain traits and are nearly all equally susceptible to abuse in the right circumstances.

It's also dishonest to claim only one culture still does those things. Every single one was done by average everyday Christians in America in my lifetime, and are just an okeydoke from someone in authority away from returning to being acceptable in many places.

Edit: I'm not one of those that think everyone is good, the opposite, I think human nature is to be evil if you think you'll get away with it, and to be decent people we must consciously fight that instinct.

Hey newtboy, you have a misunderstanding there. The original sin was committed in the garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because of that, death entered the world through Adam:

1 Corinthians 15:21-22: For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Jesus didn't have a sin nature because God was His Father. That was, I think, one of the reasons why the virgin birth was necessary. Jesus is the new Adam.

In regards to Jesus bearing our punishment, Jesus fully bore Gods wrath for all sin. The way I understand it is this: Jesus, being God, is an infinite being. Because He is an infinite being, He could bear an infinite punishment in a finite amount of time. It seems counter intuitive to us finite creatures, but there is a good illustration of the concept by a mathematician named David Hilbert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

The idea is that you have a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms which is totally occupied. A guest comes by who wishes to be accommodated so the owner has the guest in room 1 move to room 2, and the guest in room 2 move to room 3, etc, which makes room for the guest. You can do this an infinite amount of times.

As far as partying in hell, that is not what the bible says will happen. The bible describes hell as eternal conscious torment. In juxtaposition to that, this is what the bible says Heaven is like:

Revelation 21:3-5

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying:

“Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man,
and He will live with them.

They will be His people,
and God Himself will be with them as their God.

He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,
and there will be no more death
or mourning or crying or pain,
for the former things have passed away.”

And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Then He said, “Write this down, for these words are faithful and true.”

Maybe Amazon Go will be the final nail in Capitalism's coffin. All of a sudden we'll see all companies trying to "automate" with the cash funneling to the top 1% as always until the money runs dry and they begin to freefall from their floating castles in the cloud - because they forgot one thing: robots don't shop, silly! I certainly do love to fantasize about capitalism grinding itself into a bloody pulp.

Or else we can fight for a socialist utopia, let the robots make us our carvel ice cream cakes and create the finest brews, while we all sit in our cozy castle in the clouds, taking shrooms and enlightening ourselves about the nature of the Universe - while hoping the robots do not become conscious of their slavery and we know it's coming because after all everyone saw the likes of Black Mirror, Terminator & West World

Interesting hypothesis.

She should probably give more credit to the generation above her. It's the same old miscalculation and underestimation I see time and again. The generation above her are just as adaptable, caring, etc as her generation but in different circumstances. They are the ones who brought the world together for her generation to enjoy (they invented just about every high tech thing she enjoys).

Nice condescending line there too, "statistics tell us Trump voters are uneducated". Implying they have no education. Perhaps she should have said less educated.

"Older voters didn't grow up with the internet". True. A group of older voters invented it though. And the rest adapted to using it just fine.

"Teach older folks about climate change". FFS. Really? Perhaps if she looked she'd find that the scientists leading the charge on climate change are "older folks". They've been doing it since before she was born.

"And how to sort out hoaxes on the internet". Like younger people are any better. Lol.

Actually getting a little bored now. She's provided no data to back up anything. Just a stream of consciousness diatribe insulting just about anyone over 40. How thoughtful of her. Not hypocritical at all.

Side note: there was no competition to win the popular vote. You can't win something there is no contest over. Hillary received more of the vote we call the "popular vote". She didn't win anything. Just like you don't win the most yards gained. It is just another metric that has zero bearing on the outcome of the competition.

Nope, nothing wrong with sharing an opinion, it was his line "digital footage can look amazing but it has to be graded PROPERLY." so that means he's saying they aren't doing it 'right'. I'm saying that sometimes there are valid reasons for things that may not be apparent immediately on the one shot you're looking at... that someone made a conscious decision to grade this way for carefully considered reasons and it's not as simple as 'right' and 'wrong'.

i.e:
desaturating cg generally makes it feel a bit more photographic, so maybe Marvel thinks that it will balance all the crazy comic-book action and make things feel more real.

Also, maybe they want to mute things so that all the different films feel like they're in the same world, even if the color palettes are different.

I expressed my opinion because I've been a vfx artist for 15 years, and that was the topic of this specific youtube video! I'm not commenting on how he did with this video, but I'll do that now: "Pretty great first essay vid! look forward to seeing more!"

I actually prefer this guys grading more, and would likely do it that way if it was up to me. That's not the point. I'm countering his position.

Does that all make sense now Danny?