The Japanese didn't destroy the oil tanks at Pearl Harbour because they wanted to take control of the oil in Indonesia? This documentary is all over the place.

This video makes Sydney look a lot more interesting than I remember it Maybe I should've taken more ferry rides to see the harbour?

>> ^longde:

The attached article says in the comments that she does have electricity.
I don't have a TV at my house. And we don't let our toddler use any electronics. What's wrong with a shelf full of books and games?
>> ^Shepppard:
I've just got too many questions about this.
Does she still go to school?
Does the kid go to school?
Does she work?
If she does go to school or work, what happens to the kid when she's gone?
(as stated) whose land is she on?
Honestly, I get it. She's doesn't want to conform to the "ideal" form of life. But how far can you go without upsetting your child?
If it were just her, yeah, I'd be fine with it. Novel concept, but no electricity? Granted, you don't need a t.v., you don't need a computer, but it almost seems like the child is going to be oddly out of place later in life because she's being denied those things now.
Who knows, maybe during the day when the kid is hopefully with a babysitter or something she gets her fix.. but her talk of moving the "house" to a barge and just sailing.. Honestly, it's sounding like she's being more selifish then anything.
Edit: it says in the linked story that she's a Babysitter (thus why the other children are there).
Now I'm curious if she's using whatever credentials she went to school for and that's a side job, or if that's her only job.



Toddler to me sounds like a very young child, that's different then one that seems to be 8-10. She can obviously read, But denying your child anything, specifically things that are considered staples of life in the modern age seems like it's just going to either A) Give them a disadvantage later in life, or B) The child will start to harbour resentment towards the parents for not being given something that could have been provided.

However, I'll also assume that your child goes on play-dates? And if they ARE old enough to go to school, then they'll learn all about computers and technology there.

The one we see in the video however doesn't seem to go to school, and therefore is either going to be home-schooled, or no schooled (Just basically learns what mommy sees fit to teach). And when she's older, that's going to be a serious disadvantage.

booyah.. Pearl Harbour gets a worthy competitor in the trash departement..

I was reminded of the old make-and-break engine: http://youtu.be/UxGw4d2NFMo

Which I only know of because of the late Stan Rogers' "Make and Break Harbour:" http://youtu.be/6E2DFa18kYI

edit: Now a Sift! http://videosift.com/video/Stan-Rogers-Make-and-Break-Harbour

@SDGundamX (warning, long post, in 2 parts, w/tldr @end)

From the content of your reply I'm going to assume (or should I hope?) that you are playing the devil's advocate in your defense of religious belief/faith(addressed in 2nd comment below); correct me if I'm wrong. As for me, I readily admit that my defense of rudeness is presented in a spirit of controversy; I also prefer direct but insultless argumentation in these kinds of debates, but am not against the occasional use of painful - even insulting - truths.

On "Rudity"

Before answering on this subject, I think it is important to stress that the woman above is a comedian, something surely stated in her presentation at the show's beginning. I would defend her exclamation regardless, but the fact definitely makes it easier, since hyperbole, shock and insult are all tools of the comedian's/satirist's trade. You might say that she's not at a comedy show, to which I would answer that one need not be.

You ask for examples of rudeness/insult-laden arguments being productive. I would gesture very generally in the direction of those whose wavering minds were decided by the argumentation of the "New Atheists", some of whom are utterly disrespectful of faith and religious beliefs... 'insultingly so' I might add. Sure, they do not say outright "religious believers are idiots" (nor does Kate mind you), but say as much and worse about their beliefs. PZ Myers, one of the most foul-mouthed "New Atheists" on the web and irl (one example which even I found excessively harsh), has been encouraged by ex-believers to continue debating creationists (something he, like others, has renounced, because of the weight of the stupidity); because it works.

I don't think my personal anecdotal evidence counts for much, but since you asked (and since I'm rambling)... The process of my parents' deconversion from evangelical christianity, brought about by yours truly, contained copious amounts of insult, the quality and quantity of which would make the mild "idiot" comment above seem like a compliment in comparison. I'm not particularly proud of my teenage, anger-spurred vulgarity of that time, and were it to be redone I'd definitely tone it down, but I am proud of my relative success: one of my parents is now about as antitheist as I, and while I suspect the other of harbouring a remnant of faith in the supernatural, at least it is never brought up and no longer affects family life or decisions.

You might argue that my insulting descriptions of their dearly-held beliefs were not what convinced them, and you'd be partially right. There were plenty of actual arguments amongst the harsh words. But I was told later (by the parent I fully convinced) that my passionate (read "insulting") tirades against their beliefs is what got them to be questioned; it was the fact that a person they considered as not entirely unintelligent could voice such statements so bluntly that shook them from the comfort of their position of belief. I have also reacted with mocking contempt when facing friends and/or family tempted by other nonsense like conspiracy theories or homeopathy. After OBL's death, one of my close friends let slip that her soon-to-be husband was a 9/11 truther and that she found his stance convincing. I spoke my mind freely (as I do with friends), with words including "pathetic", "stupid" and "he's lost a lot of intellectual respect". Needless to say she was angered (especially since I'd never met the bloke yet), but it did not hinder her from accepting the follow-up argumentation. Had I been more diplomatic, she might have let my argumentation pass by ignored, in favour of an emotionally charged stance.

Yes, I realise the examples above do not concern public debate, but private discussion with people who already had a favourable opinion of me. I don't usually spend time in the company of people who dislike me (or vice-versa), nor do I make a habit of being blunt with people I don't know (okay, maybe a bit on the webs). I have been known to tell evangelical work colleagues that their belief that humankind is twice the offspring of incest is both ridiculous and disgusting, and yet they still speak to me (it helps that here in Europe such beliefs are held by a fringe). Dunno if it had any effect on their beliefs though (and really don't care).



tl;dr: it's a comedian's role to speak truths in uncomfortable ways; persuasion can still be efficient when insult is involved; I'm a contrary bitch with very few friends (but quality ones )
>> ^SDGundamX:
[...] 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.

Modern interpretation of the "Turn the other cheek also" bit and the rest of the "sermon on the mount" ignore cultural context. There's tons of commentary about it if you Google it. Jesus was teaching passive resistance. Not that he necessarily existed at all.

Anyway, he goes on whith the old trope about aksing contrition allowing wrong-doers to do more wrong without consequence. The point of contrition is that if you have to openly, verbally acknowledge your sins, you become more aware of bad things you do, and are less likely to do them again. Raised Catholic myself, until I left the church, I avoided doing bad things because then I'd have to confess them. People who delight in others' suffering aren't the type to get all contrite about it. It's a strawman argument. He equates, "cleansing of unrighteousness" with forgiveness, though they're not the same thing. Unrighteousness is the defect that causes you to do bad things. If you sincerely believe you have been cleased of it, then you will have to choose to act against your god to reoffend. It's a pretty smart system. He also assumed that forgiveness also wipes away contrition. It doesn't. It just clears your heavenly ledger of sins that will be counted against you when you die.

And he really goes wrong with, "Love your neighbour as yourself." He's not commanding people to have loving feelings towards their neighbour or themselves. That's impossible to comply with. It's not love as a feeling, it's love as action. He's commanding people to treat everyone well rather than to harbour grudges and be a bitch, which only leads to escalation. If everyone treated everyone else decently, the world would be a much more comfortable place to live, and we'd all prosper more easily.

Further, it means if someone does something bad, and you show them love, it's more likely to change them in a good way. If you show them hate and contempt and "take pleasure in their suffering", it's just going to make them a worse person, and someone who has already shown a tendancy to do bad things is exactly the wrong person to make worse. You can love someone while protecting yourself. It's way, way out of the Western concept, but it's common in other places to punnish someone, even severely, with love.

The worst is the selective interpretation of "...as yourself." This means "Love your neighbour as well as yourself." It's an extention of your own love to you. When you love yourself, you'll treat yourself better, take care of yoruself more, show yourself more understanding. The result will be your having more love to share with others. I'm totally down with that.

So, you and I are talking about confirmation bias in another thread. Do you think that as an anti-religious person in general, you feel satisfaction when you are shown fault in religious teachings? Does it satisfy you to the point where you might not really analyse what's being said? Looks to me that's what's happened here. You were looking for someone to agree with you, and someone slamming Jesus' main teachings hit the sweet spot. I dislike religions too, and enjoy people like Hitch and Tyson, and to a lesser degree Dawkins doing their thing, but this is really weak soup.

>> ^hpqp:

Quote mine: fallacy of quoting out of context.
Care to illustrate how his citation of Bible verses is such?
As for recycling other people's arguments, that's pretty much what everyone does, some with more eloquence than others of course.
>> ^messenger:
He quotemines the bible and recycles others' arguments only to demonstrate that Jesus wasn't a very good god.

The metaphor of an endangered species of duck is still apt.


No. It is not an apt comparison, you should stop using it, thinking in these brackets and stop listening to whomever told you this crap:


1. Human beings are at the top of the food chain, intelligent, social and able to make babies with one another, as previously stated.

2. Ducks can be saved by humans because humans can save ducks because: point 1. Ducks cannot form eco-departments of duck governments to save other ducks. Because they are fucking ducks. Certain species of ducks cannot breed with other species of ducks. Because they are actually different in more ways than colour. So saving a certain species of duck makes sense for biodiversity and etc. Also, plants and whatnot.

3. Now: Human beings of whatever colour, culture or other dividing feature your racist brain cooks up, are NOT DUCKS. They are all equally human. All. Equally. Let it sink in. Aaaalll. Eeeequaally. Not one single person is above another.

The above considered, I plead that because a particular civilization finds itself below replacement level it is in a perilous state and merits attention. This is a conclusion that, again, assumes an overreaching, unfettered respect for diversity.


There it is again, the racism. See point 3 for physical racism. Now to your cultural racism: "Civilisations," cultures, religions are NOT DUCKS. They are collective constructs. They diminish, they go inert. You can look at them in museums. Because there are almost always remnants and relics. But cultures are never dead. They are not murdered, driven away by evil muslims, outbred or dying off.

Cultures go on in the following cultures. They are absorbed. They are mixed. They are in flux. As I mentioned before. Cultures change. It is inevitable. A few hundred years ago, German was spoken on the British isles. It mingled with Scandinavian, Celtic and french languages and cultures --> English.

You must extend your own desire to protect a unique given species to the right of a nation to maintain its own identifying characteristics. Realize that the desire for prosperity and sustained existence of a nation does not by definition mandate the impingement on another.

Bullshit. Any nation's "identifying characteristics" did not exist 200 years ago and will not exist in 200 years time. It doesn't even need an outside influence to do it. It happens. "Nations" do not have a right to maintain characteristics. Those which tried, failed. We live in a globally connected world now in which ideas, culture, science and knowledge can be shared freely. Look at yourself being lectured at by a post-racial, post-fascist human being on the internet. Whatever culture you belong to, it changed a lot and it will keep changing a lot. This is called progress. Otherwise we'd all be talking a babylonian language.


On the other hand, if like GenjiKilpatrick you harbour a sense that "whites" deserve to be eradicated because of who they are... you're barely human.

As far as I can see here, he never said such a thing. This is your irrational fearful racist mind at work. Try to look outside your head. I guess you misread this: Not to mention - Adult White Males have been the most privileged, self-entitled, killin' & manipulating "lesser" cultures type homo sapiens on the planet for a few centuries now, at least.
He says that white men were basically "in charge." Nowhere does he call for an eradication.

And again you are calling a fiction of your own "barely human". I do not think it, Genji does not think it. This is your racist mind creating fictions you can lash out at. Try to see how your own fears are all without merit. Group B will not destroy anyone's culture. They will enhance it. As they have done before. And Group A will enhance them. As they have done before. In fact, there are no group A or B. Just humans with interchanging, intermingling cultures. Stop thinking in black and white. In every aspect.

You've presented a thoughtful and considerate reply, DerHasisttot. Thank you.

The most basic argument I have presented is the erosion and eventual fading out of a particular population, and this is the crux of what I would like to focus on. The premise can be applied to any element of biodiversity.

The metaphor of an endangered species of duck is still apt.

My assumption was correct in that you, as most people, would find justification for mobilizing efforts in ensuring this particular population is given a chance to exist. For whatever reason, you have deemed this species of duck worth your concern and you do not hesitate to voice your consternation. Another assumption I will make is that the same can be said of any population that contributes to the precious diversity of our world and faces existential challenges. Whether it be a rare beetle, some exotic bush or the giant panda.

I like to think a noble feature of humanity is our desire for fairness and that we should not stand by while something is endangered. We both probably share this in common.

The above considered, I plead that because a particular civilization finds itself below replacement level it is in a perilous state and merits attention. This is a conclusion that, again, assumes an overreaching, unfettered respect for diversity.

Just as you should care for a particular duck, it would not negate your concern for other types of mallards, waterfowl or any other species. Your sense of justice would be shared equally.

You must extend your own desire to protect a unique given species to the right of a nation to maintain its own identifying characteristics. Realize that the desire for prosperity and sustained existence of a nation does not by definition mandate the impingement on another.

If you can not grasp this sympathy you display for a bird and apply it to another context, you are intellectually dishonest.

On the other hand, if like GenjiKilpatrick you harbour a sense that "whites" deserve to be eradicated because of who they are... you're barely human.

>> ^Djevel:

>> ^NaMeCaF:
Wow. Is it just me or did anyone else get the impression that Bradley Cooper is a bit of an arsehole from that?

Not really. Any particular reason?


Mainly the "interactions" at 1:20-1:30 and 5:20-5:38. His looks to the audience and Andy in particular seem to harbour some kind of contempt or arrogance towards Chris.

It just seems like he doesn't want to engage or laugh with O'dowd at all. In fact the only times Cooper laughs is after his own unfunny, snide remarks.

Maybe it's just me, but he definitely doesn't seem down to earth at all from that.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*isdupe
>> ^jonny:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Travis-Pastrana-leaps-into-new-year-with-record-jump

Looks more like a Harbour Seal

http://depts.washington.edu/natmap/photos/mammals/harbor_seal_1953np.jpg
http://questgarden.com/62/66/3/080319045512/images/harbour%20solo.jpg

Not much like a Leopard Seal
http://www.trappedbymonsters.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/LeopardSeal.jpg

>> ^robv:

Yea so that was awesome... but not really an attempt. Seems like they made it into the harbor... etc etc.


It's a successful attempt. Gotta love these nitpickers.

Navigating in that kind of weather is a lot harder than just driving straight ahead; you're constantly being driven in the direction of the rollers making hitting that entry difficult. And rollers the size of those could have broken that ship open badly had they come down on the breakwater instead.
>> ^Shepppard:

Okay, maybe I'm just completely unfamiliar with anything Nautical, but, someone please explain why this is crazy?