From my understanding of relativity and space-time continuum, 587 light years at close the speed of light wouldn't take very long to those on the space-craft because of "time-dilation". However, to those not on the spaceship...well, they'd be LONG gone. Somebody want to back me up on that? Maybe somebody smart? >> ^zor:

OK now all you have to do is build a space ship that can go the speed of light, get on it, and ride for 587 years. sheesh!

reading comments on this incident, I learned about the technical term for a concept of escalating use of force, and while those in the military or LEO may know, this was interesting to read for me:

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

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/continuum.htm



Great video editing... shouldnt there be an app for this kind of simultaneous stitching based on audio?

I believe one of the claims for the use of force here was the inability of officers to leave the situation, and feeling threatened... yet he manages to easily walk over the line and among all non-violent observers.

You might want to read it more carefully:

"Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick identifies a continuum between homosociality and homosexuality, going as far as correlating feminism and lesbian desire: 'it is precisely this broad spectrum of women's homosocial loyalties that Adrienne Rich has referred to and celebrated as the "lesbian continuum"

and the connection from the other article:

7th century BC as an aspect of Greek homosocial culture,[5] which was characterized also by athletic and artistic nudity, delayed marriage for aristocrats, symposia, and the social seclusion of women.[6] The influence of pederasty was so pervasive that it has been called "the principal cultural model for free relationships between citizens."[7]"

There is a casaul relationship between the two, and the normalization of these kinds of behaviors led to the pederast society documented in greece





>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You don't think there is any connection? It's a historically proven fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosociality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
>> ^luxury_pie:
Way to go comparing apples with pedophiles @shinyblurry.
@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.
>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.
When will this trendy save-gays-from-bullying business fall out of favor with the left for a new cause?
Wouldn't it be so much easier if America just banned free speech like the canucks did?
It would be easier than getting rid of government schools.



"In Classical times there appears a note of concern that the institution of pederasty might give rise to a "morbid condition", adult homosexuality, that today's eromenos may become tomorrow's kinaidos, defined as the passive or "penetrated" partner."
Are you referring to this? Would you mind reading BOTH of these articles about the topic?
Would you please mind explaning where - by the power of the everlasting dragon hunting, snake exploding jeesus - you think there is any FACT of the correlation you were implying?
Let me help you with the reading part: "Homosociality, by definition, implies neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality."
Please help me with this?

I do love that song "Laughter in the Rain." I mean, not love like I'd like to give it a rimjob or anything...or oral sex...not like he's Annie Lennox...but it was a happy song in a time/space continuum when I was around ten years old and more monkey than man, climbing trees and chewing on dandelion stems, scouring unlikely places for thrown-away Playboy's and Penthouses and dreaming of a secret hiding place where I could have sex with women twice my age....

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Does that make it a triple promote? We are pushing the boundaries of the sift-time continuum.


You're blowing my mind, man.

Does that make it a triple promote? We are pushing the boundaries of the sift-time continuum.

Fair enough.

In reply to this comment by jmzero:
Maybe it's more about what was allowed to happen, and less about who did what. Ever think of that?


Uhh.. yes, I have thought of that. And if the theory is that the US government could or should have done more before 9/11 or that they knew something or whatever... fine. Cool. I think you can believe that and not be crazy. US government incompetent? Check. US government failed to save some people (on purpose) to further some end? Sure, why not. Maybe they thought the towers wouldn't go down and it would be mostly just a symbolic thing? There's plenty of possible variations here that aren't nutbars. I'm sure there's a whole continuum of different types and kinds of information that the government acts on or doesn't act on for all sorts of reasons (often probably fairly shady ones).

To be clear, I don't think "the government" likely had terribly good, credible information coming into 9/11 - or to the extent they did I think they didn't use that information appropriately for reasons more like incompetence than planning. But, again, I don't think anyone would be crazy for not agreeing with me on that. As before, there's no good reason it couldn't be true. If people are demanding investigations into who knew what when and who didn't act on what then cool. Great. Do that.

However, the videos I've been commenting on have typically been of the "it was a controlled demolition planned by someone other than terrorists" variety. Those are very different theories than the ones we're talking about, and they are nutbars.

And here (in the comment you're commenting on) clearly, I was responding to a comment that wasn't "US government let it happen". He was deriding the claim "Best theory that Al Quada did 9/11". It was precisely about "who did what" not "what was allowed to happen". Even if that comment wasn't clear, which I think it is, for context you can read the 1000 other comments he's made here - clearly he isn't just saying "the government knew". And, if that was what he had been saying, I (and probably many of the others who make fun of him) would respond to him differently.

@SDGundamX

On the So-Called Benifits of Religious Belief

First, I'm going to assume that you simply googled "religion+health+studies" or stg like that, and did not read before posting; frankly, I don't blame you. I can only hope you are not as intellectually (and downright) dishonest as the second link you posted: the very first study cited is completely misinterpreted; basically, since kissing multiple partners can increase probability of meningococcal disease, and strict religious tradition would prevent that, religion prevents meningococcal disease. Yeah, really strong science in favour of faith right there. Some of the studies cited actually prove the opposite of what the site is peddling, but they excuse this by accusing the meddling of "Jews and Buddhists" in the prayer groups. I'm actually surprised at some of the studies the website cites, one of which concludes that "Certain forms of religiousness may increase the risk of death." Some of the studies make no mention of religion whatsoever. I could go on, but the point is made.

As for the studies - and they exist - that show positive correlation between health and religion, they concern only the social benefits of religion as community*. The so-called "New Atheists" are the first to point out this positive role, although the uniting and socially reinforcing factor of religion is the same force that fosters and reinforces hate, prejudice and discrimination against the self (guilt) and the "Other" (non-members of the ingroup, "heathens", gays, blacks, "Westerners", you name it). When people use the socially unifying and reinforcing benefits of religious organisations to defend religious beliefs, a certain comparison quickly comes to mind, which Godwin's law prohibits me from making...

As for faith itself, a recent study suggests that it can actually have negative effects on health, because of the stress and guilt believers put upon themselves when prayed for (link). Regardless, even if a positive placebo effect could/can be attributed to faith/rel. belief, it does not make it any less idiotic or objectionable than the belief in homeopathy or vaudou.
_{(if interested in what I think of the "faith is comforting" argument, pm me, I'm filling this thread enough as is)}

Your "two-sides of same coin" analogy fails entirely: telling a believer they're delusional is not denying their perception of their own happiness. A child happy at the prospect of Santa delivering presents is delusional, but truly happy. The idea that there is the same amount of evidence against and for religious belief is pure ludicrous. The Abrahamic God (let's not bring in the thousand and one others for now) has been logically disproven, even before el Jeebs showed up with his promise of hellfire. There is also substantial evidence that he is man-made, as are the book(s) describing him, which are full of inconsistencies (and outright fallacies) themselves.

Your comment about John Smith suggests that the only evidence that could convict a fraudster is confession; good thing you aren't a judge! Seriously though, your doubt probably stems from your lack of acquaintance with the evidence. You can start by reading his brief biography on Wikipedia; his con trick of "glass-seeing" (looking at shiny stones in a hat and pretending to see the location of treasure), for which he was arrested several times, is eerily familiar to the birth of the Book of Mormon (looking into a hat and "transcribing" gold plates that probably did not exist). He even had to change a passage after losing some pages of the transcript He received a divine revelation that the exact pages of the transcript that he lost needed to be changed, and that God had foreseen the loss of those papers (link).

The further one goes back in history, the harder it is to get historical evidence against religious beliefs, but there are always logical arguments that count as evidence as well (in arguing the idiocy of certain beliefs). Since my Santa analogy above seems not to have appealed to you, here's a different one. Imagine Kate were to have said "I do not believe in witchcraft/vampires because I'm not an idiot." Audience response? "Duh!" or stg similar. And yet there is the same amount of evidence for witches and vampires as there is for deities and afterlife**. The only difference between these three once highly common delusions is that one of them persists, even demanding respect, when it deserves at best critical scrutiny, at worst nothing but scorn.


<sub>*(and sometimes those benefits stemming from certain rules, like no alcohol/extra-marital sex etc... still nothing to do with belief.)

**Actually, there is relatively more evidence in favour of vampirism than of deities and afterlife</sub>


tl;dr: faith/rel. belief has no health benefits (check sources b4 posting); argument of religion's social role is double-edged; delusions are still delusions if they make you happy (try drugs); Joseph Smith Jr was a (convicted) fraud; idiotic beliefs are still idiotic when shared by the majority, just more socially unacceptable to mock.

>> ^SDGundamX:


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.
My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.
About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.
I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails). [...]

>> ^hpqp:

@SDGundamX
You make a very fair point, and I agree with you to a certain degree. I agree that it is important to respect people, even when one does not respect certain among their beliefs.
When it comes to evidence, however, I disagree that there is no evidence against the beliefs of theists; all the evidence points to those beliefs being the creation of men from a specific timeperiod in history. In a court case you don't necessarily need a "smoking gun" to disprove someone's alibi, if their alibi is so obviously made up, or logically impossible.
As for the New Atheists themselves are the ones demanding special treatment. They are essentially saying that everyone must think the same way that they do, and those who don't are somehow inferior., I would refer you to my Santa Claus comparison above. Sure, Santa Claus may exist, but for a grown person to believe in Santa when all the evidence points to him being the production of the human imagination is - to put it bluntly - dumb... even idiotic.
You say A lot of people believe because they feel their faith improves their life--provides them with social and psychological comfort, gives them a sense of mission and hope, etc. This is exactly the delusion that the so-called "New Atheists" are trying to fight against (amongst other things) because not only is it an empty promise, but it also lends credence (and thus power) to the belief systems it is attached to (X-ity, Islam, etc.) which in turn do far more damage.
It's funny that you exclude Scientology because "Hubbard admitted to making it up". Historical evidence shows that John Smith was a conman and a charlatan, yet try and tell a mormon today that his/her faith is based on a conman's made up religion. The people who believe may or may not be charlatans (look at all the preachers/gurus who make huge profits... heck, check out the golden decked halls of the Vatican), but those who founded such beliefs most probably were, at least to a certain degree.
Finally, as to whether or not being rude is always counterproductive, it would seem that is a matter of divergent opinions (you can tell what mine are in the comments above).


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.

My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.

About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.

I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails).

Just one more thing... since you believe there are times that being rude or insulting can be productive, I'd like to know if you have any examples (personal examples are fine) of that being the case. I'm just curious what brought you to that conclusion.

I guess its a truck.. maybe a tornado was involved? I suspect the 2 were in different points of space time because it was clear this craptastic camera phone was warping the time space continuum.

The ontological argument is wrong on so many levels. Jefferson said the best response to unintelligible propositions is ridicule. This is it.

If all things that actually exist were ranked by "greatness" on some single well-defined continuum, then yes, there would of course have to be a maximum. "God exists in the understanding..." is just a sleight of hand that adds nothing to the argument but aids in conflating that narrow definition with the usual meaning of the word god. Also, they do not bother to define "greatness", or even show that it is logically possible to do so in a consistent way across an infinite number of possible types of measurement.

Right, so here's an idea. Just agree to disagree, and move the fu%* on! Teach evolution like the theory it is in science class, and let people make up their own minds. Teach christian ideas in the subjects where its relevant, like when it's being alluded to in a literature class. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to do or understand. Just because an idea is taught, comprehended, and understood, it doesn't mean it's believed in by any involved. I taught communism; I'm not a communist. I taught capitalism; I'm not a capitalist. There's value for everyone to learn and understand other ideas you disagree with.

I fully understand that knowledge is derived from multiple sources, and multiple sources conflict. Different religions conflict about the origins of man. Different people within the same religion disagree. Different scientists disagree. Why is it religious people can respectfully disagree about the origins of man, but a creationist and an evolutionist can't without biting each other's heads off?



>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^heropsycho:
What kills me about Americans, including atheists and hardcore religious people alike, is maybe, just maybe, various religions are different approximations to describe a reality bigger than we can comprehend with reason based on empirical evidence alone. Nobody had a culture war when Einstein and others thought up explanations of quantum mechanics, phenomena concerning space/time continuum, and then ended up being wrong about some of it. We'd be much better off allowing speculation, whether it be religious or scientific in nature, and just accept it for what it is.
The only thing I ask, of both sides, is check your religion and scientific hypothesis at the door when debating what impacts us all, while coming more into agreement on what constitutes faith, actual knowledge, speculation, and facts.

Ahh, the old non-overlapping magisteria idea. Nice idea, but it just doesn't work. The problem is that the two cover common ground. Science often directly contradicts what religious doctrine teaches, the prime example being evolution.

>> ^heropsycho:

What kills me about Americans, including atheists and hardcore religious people alike, is maybe, just maybe, various religions are different approximations to describe a reality bigger than we can comprehend with reason based on empirical evidence alone. Nobody had a culture war when Einstein and others thought up explanations of quantum mechanics, phenomena concerning space/time continuum, and then ended up being wrong about some of it. We'd be much better off allowing speculation, whether it be religious or scientific in nature, and just accept it for what it is.
The only thing I ask, of both sides, is check your religion and scientific hypothesis at the door when debating what impacts us all, while coming more into agreement on what constitutes faith, actual knowledge, speculation, and facts.


Ahh, the old non-overlapping magisteria idea. Nice idea, but it just doesn't work. The problem is that the two cover common ground. Science often directly contradicts what religious doctrine teaches, the prime example being evolution.

What kills me about Americans, including atheists and hardcore religious people alike, is maybe, just maybe, various religions are different approximations to describe a reality bigger than we can comprehend with reason based on empirical evidence alone. Nobody had a culture war when Einstein and others thought up explanations of quantum mechanics, phenomena concerning space/time continuum, and then ended up being wrong about some of it. We'd be much better off allowing speculation, whether it be religious or scientific in nature, and just accept it for what it is.

The only thing I ask, of both sides, is check your religion and scientific hypothesis at the door when debating what impacts us all, while coming more into agreement on what constitutes faith, actual knowledge, speculation, and facts.

Cop should have gone 10-78 and then deployed a tazer, once, after he should have realized that the guy did not pose serious bodily harm. But no, he pulled his gun, which in my mind is much worse than the tazing at the end.

I was always under the impression that the officer should issue a lawful order to drop a weapon before using lethal force; Which means a perpetrator must present lethal force before an officer can lawfully use lethal force. The force continuum etc etc. I guess that has changed they go straight to lethal force. Some jackass getting out of a car being upset isn't life threatening.

Furthermore the excuse that it's dangerous, is a cop out, they know what they're getting into when they put on that badge, and gun. If they don't then they shouldn't be police officers. Using fear as an excuse to make rash decisions is dangerous, it endangers the lives of fellow officers and the public.

http://www.policetest.info/FORCE_CONTINUUM_POLICE_USE_OF_FORCE.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum

Furthermost, just because they're cops doesn't ever mean they should be given leniency in any case, no matter how right they were to use force. They police the people and as such should be held to the highest standard of justice, which is clearly not the case in the United States, citation? Heh, take a look the failed war on drugs.