People saying "they need to express their data points more clearly, bla bla bla" - did you even look at the website linked in the comments? It has the source of the data listed there which you will be able to look at at your own leisure.

They're scientists. They don't present raw data to you, because you probably don't have the technical knowledge of the field to understand what those symbols and signs mean. What they do is interpret the data for you so that you can understand it, and allow you to go and look at the same freely available data for yourself if you think you can understand it.

Not everything is simple enough for people who are not trained to understand....to understand.

I mean this is starting to get flat out rediculous; people trip over themselves to question the expertise of scientists at places like NASA, but when a politician tells them everything is the other guy's fault they eat it up like ice cream.

@therealblankman it only just occured to me that your comment could have been a joke, but if it wasn't, then you should go and avail yourself of the methods available in the modern world to learn about things that we can't necessarily see with our own unaided eyes. We've got microscopes and ice cores and shit! Know what i mean!?

I hope you believe in King George, because he wasn't around in your time but we've got a lot riding on him and his descendents!

I dont understand what overthrowing Mongolian rule after over 2 centuries of rule has to do with it being European? If anything this would be a pre-requisite for being considered asian i.e. China,parts of India and the various 'stans etc (all of which kept their own unique cultures)........

Russia is as culturally distinct from the narrow minded stereotype of Asians (i.e. the Chi-panese Kung-fu people) as are the indians and 'stanis. Are the Kazakhistanis asian? Uzbeks? Tajiks? They were all part of the USSR until its collapse. Does this mean that they were European and are now Asian because they were dropped by Russia?

Russia is just as out of place in Europe as it is in Asia but saying that it is not Asian just as saying that it is not European is wrong and is essentially reinforcing the racist stereotype that all asians are chinese.

Asia is a big continent it holds much more than just chinese people and shaolin monks.


>> ^ghark:

>> ^Confucius:


>> ^Shepppard:
Asian channel description:
"This channel is dedicated to the ancient cultures and traditions of Eastern Asia, particularly China and Japan, that began thousands of years ago and continue to this very day only slightly if at all affected by the modern world. It covers everything from period Shaolin martial arts videos in China to wacky reality Japanese shows of today"
so, I'm going to say this one doesn't belong.
Nochannel
wtf
drugs
dance


I dunno, I mean they got beaten up pretty badly over the centuries by raiding armies from areas such as Mongolia, but they kept their own unique culture through all that, rather than being assimilated as happened in other countries that experienced similar defeats. Russia was just too big, vast and harsh to conquer permanently, so I think that it deserves to be considered as an entity outside what might be defined culturally as Asia, regardless of geographic location. To further confuse things, it was apparently pretty popular historically amongst Russians to consider Europe as extending to the Urals, and also part of Siberia is on the North American plate.

>> ^Confucius:

So what you're saying is, that the Asian channel is racially defined? Read up on Russian history and look at its geography. It belongs in Asia as much as it belongs in Europe
BTW this is a pretty bad way to describe Asia (i know you didnt write this)....i.e. how is it possible that someone can say that these "ancient cultures continue today only slightly affected by the modern world?"
Pretty ethno-centric too.....by modern world im assuming what is meant is the Western World...?

>> ^Shepppard:
Asian channel description:
"This channel is dedicated to the ancient cultures and traditions of Eastern Asia, particularly China and Japan, that began thousands of years ago and continue to this very day only slightly if at all affected by the modern world. It covers everything from period Shaolin martial arts videos in China to wacky reality Japanese shows of today"
so, I'm going to say this one doesn't belong.
Nochannel
wtf
drugs
dance



I dunno, I mean they got beaten up pretty badly over the centuries by raiding armies from areas such as Mongolia, but they kept their own unique culture through all that, rather than being assimilated as happened in other countries that experienced similar defeats. Russia was just too big, vast and harsh to conquer permanently, so I think that it deserves to be considered as an entity outside what might be defined culturally as Asia, regardless of geographic location. To further confuse things, it was apparently pretty popular historically amongst Russians to consider Europe as extending to the Urals, and also part of Siberia is on the North American plate.

So what you're saying is, that the Asian channel is racially defined? Read up on Russian history and look at its geography. It belongs in Asia as much as it belongs in Europe

BTW this is a pretty bad way to describe Asia (i know you didnt write this)....i.e. how is it possible that someone can say that these "ancient cultures continue today only slightly affected by the modern world?"

Pretty ethno-centric too.....by modern world im assuming what is meant is the Western World...?



>> ^Shepppard:

Asian channel description:
"This channel is dedicated to the ancient cultures and traditions of Eastern Asia, particularly China and Japan, that began thousands of years ago and continue to this very day only slightly if at all affected by the modern world. It covers everything from period Shaolin martial arts videos in China to wacky reality Japanese shows of today"
so, I'm going to say this one doesn't belong.
Nochannel
wtf
drugs
dance

Asian channel description:

"This channel is dedicated to the ancient cultures and traditions of Eastern Asia, particularly China and Japan, that began thousands of years ago and continue to this very day only slightly if at all affected by the modern world. It covers everything from period Shaolin martial arts videos in China to wacky reality Japanese shows of today"

so, I'm going to say this one doesn't belong.

*Nochannel
*wtf
*drugs
*dance

>> ^thumpa28:

I dont follow the argument hes making. Religion is bad, just look at North Korea? Seems a bit of a stretch. For a start its a political system whose strength lies in its status as the sole provider of all welfare in a country where there is no other option but death by bullet or starvation. We'd all be praising Jesus if it meant that or starve. And the North koreans are a lot less afraid of eternal damnation than of termination at the hands of the 1.2 million standing army, in a country of 20 million.
Theres serious comment to be made here, he was right on track with the 1984 comparison, but veered way off with the religion analogy. Seems a waste.


Kim Il-Sung is still the eternal head of the nation. North Korea is structured around hailing the great leader as a deity. Hitchens is dead right to note that is not a non-religious society, but is in fact the most uniform and strictly enforced religious society in the modern world.

We're debating why we were attacked by a handful of radical folks

Pht - I can answer that in one word. Isreal. Next?

...whether or not our military engagement, specifically since WWII, has been productive in any measurable way...

Productive to who and in what way?

You see - to a leftist - your question is unanswerable. Like Ron Paul, leftists view any military intervention by the United States as unproductive. By their very natures it is literally impossible to supply a leftist with any response that they will find satisfactory. Leftists come from a particular philosophy and perspective that disallows the word 'productive' to be used in the same sentence as 'American military engagement'. Heck to this day there are leftists who even question whether the US should have gotten involved in WW1 or WW2 or not.

Other people with other perspectives are not quite so closed-minded about whether or not a military action was 'productive' or not because they allow other definitions of 'productive' to be satisfied. But to a Proglibdyte, ANY US military action is viewed as unproductive. Someone could wax eloquent on the subject, but to a dyed-in-the-wool leftist who views the US military as the chief evil of the modern world, it is an anathema.

"they hate our freedom"

As I said before - the primary reason they are hostile is Isreal. However, from a cultural perspective the Islamic world DOES hate our freedom. The Muslim world wants Sharia Law as the method of governance for the entire world - and stuff like the US Constitution is viewed (at best) as a secular affront to Islam that is viewed with latent hostility or (at worst) a "Christian" modern Crusade to be viewed as a military enemy.

So, basically his idea is that these people don't know actual work or hardship and that these poor humble corporations (as if they're actual people) are the saviors of our modern world. What bullshit.

Here is my response.

Even if you work one or two jobs, it wont make much of a difference because workers' wages are at an all time low and corporate profits are at an all time high. That destroys his "work hard and win" argument right there for the majority of Americans.

Since 1980, corporations have started to take their profits and reinvest them and buy out competition instead of increasing the pay for their workers (that's in the link too). Basically, screw over the working class and benefit the upper class.

Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).

They most certainly are pushing their way of thinking on America, and that in every aspect of life. In California young children must now learn about gay history:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488/california-brings-gay-history-into-the-classroom

The normalization of homosexuality is also leading to the normalization of transgenders. There is now a law in California which states that transgenders have a protected right of gender expression which means they have to be allowed to cross dress at work:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/california-transgender-laws_n_1004109.html

Which leads to this:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348033

Before you say it has nothing to do with gay rights, these were the sponsors:

The bill was authored by Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and sponsored by Equality California, Transgender Law Center and Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

Here is the bill California vetoed but it shows the agenda:

Brown vetoed the Survey Data Inclusion Act, which required the state to include questions about LGBT identities, including sexual orientation and domestic partnership status among others, on state surveys.

The truth is, gays are pushing their lifestyle on this culture, and trying to gain a protected minority status. They won't stop until they are fully integrated into every aspect of our culture, including indoctrinating our children.

Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.

I just demonstrated the causal relationship by my example. There are also many studies which state there is a connection:

From the Archives of Sexual Behavior:

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

A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 'eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.'

The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2.4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles

"Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality ... Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%."

A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that '... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality

You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted.

To advocate for that would be to encourage homosexuals to continue breaking Gods law and end up in hell. I don't want homosexuals to go to hell, therefore I will continue to tell them it is immoral and that they need to repent.

Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral.

God decides what is moral, and it is the preoccuption of Christians to obey God and warn those who are perishing.

Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?

Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you are still accountable to Him. And even if I wasn't Christian, I still have a right to say homosexuality is immoral. That is my right and is guaranteed by the constitution, just as it is your right to say what you like about my religion. You would like to have it one way and stifle my right to free speech, which is ironic considering the position you're taking about equal rights.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).
Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.
You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral. Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.
It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.
There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).

Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.

You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral. Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.
It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.
There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.


>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.

It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.

There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. There are admittedly hateful ways to state the truth, and it is not something I am going out of my way to confront people about. However, that doesn't preclude me from speaking up about it. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.




>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

Thunder does not belong to anybody
So, no hard feelings.

In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
Sorry to steal your thunder! :

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

How hypocritical of @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry" title="member since January 21st, 2011" class="profilelink">shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.


Maaan. I wanted to do that :

Sorry to steal your thunder!

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

How hypocritical of @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry" title="member since January 21st, 2011" class="profilelink">shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.


Maaan. I wanted to do that :

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.


Maaan. I wanted to do that

How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.

Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.