That wasn't out of context at all, in fact if you actually use your ears and listen to what he is saying, it reinforces my point twice as much and makes what he said even worse. What they are talking about is how because of the belief that we are in the image of God, that there is a natural barrier regarding moral questions (such as infanticide)..but that this barrier is actually artificial (because they believe in evolution, that we are the same as animals) and so we shouldn't worry so much about traversing it (because they don't believe human life is in any wise sacred or special)..

dawkins says that he at least worries a bit about breaking this barrier and falling onto a slippery slope..(ie, eugenics)..so after he gets through endorsing infanticide..he graciously says he would be willing to give consideration to someone who asked the question "where does it end?"

then Peter says "yes i can see there is a problem with (killing) small children, because we're bonded to them very closely in a way..though we're not really bonded to the same extent to the fetus or even to the newborn (its easier to kill them)..but i think when people make slippery slope arguments in this area (that if we allow infanticide for "compassionate" grounds, why not kill babies with downs syndrome too?)..you have to appreciate that it does go the other way, precisely because we draw this boundary between us and animals (that we're being held back as a race because of moral constraints imposed by the idea of the sacredness of human life(ie, that infanticide and other "compassionate" murder is a good thing, and we should be doing more of it)

This is social darwinisim, and it is monstrous..and this is just the beginning, if people like this get their way. Thank you for proving my point.

>> ^luxury_pie:
How about some context: http://videosift.com/video/Peter-Singer-Uncut-Darwin-Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins
Minute 24.
Nice try though.

How about some context: http://videosift.com/video/Peter-Singer-Uncut-Darwin-Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins
Minute 24.

Nice try though.

u haz great tastes in musics bud
* quality


In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Cool song.

my pqueue is full o crap so this is 4 u to sift if you please
namaste
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP7mmtkUonc


In reply to this comment by enoch:
i posted something similar where the artists talk about this very cartoon and how they tried to get around the shower scene:
http://videosift.com/video/ren-and-stimpy-the-lost-episodes-uncu
t-and-unedited

i posted something similar where the artists talk about this very cartoon and how they tried to get around the shower scene:
http://videosift.com/video/ren-and-stimpy-the-lost-episodes-uncut-and-unedited

There's more info here: http://archive.woz.org/letters/general/78.html

Basically he buys legitimate $2 bills on uncut sheets and then has a local printer gum them into pads and perforate them. It's legitimate tender, the only unusual thing is how they're presented.

As for anyone who thinks that making something that looks like currency is okay in any way, I'd suggest a revision of forgery laws may be in order

Steve's a prankster...a nerd prankster...but a prankster. I know from older interviews that he buys uncut sheets of money from the U.S. Treasury. It's just one of those things the Treasury does that most people don't know or care to know about. http://www.moneyfactorystore.gov/uncutcurrency.aspx

Unless this is something totally different I think he's just pulling our leg a little. If you listen to how he words it he says he has a local printer make the pads...but that he got them the supplies from a "higher quality printer"...code for the U.S. Treasury.

Strange: This version has a scene before the intro song, the original one doesn't: http://videosift.com/video/Game-of-Thrones-RPG-Spoilers

Edit: Ah, this one is "Uncut," cool.

He's absolutely right in that many studies show that not being circumcised is a risk factor for carcinoma of the penis. They are easy enough to search for but the results do vary aside from the risk factor. And penile cancer is rare, so nobody really makes the argument anymore that circumcision can eliminate it, although they used to. Most of the studies I've seen say that although circumcision is shown to lower the risk factor, the instances of penile cancer in countries with low rates of circumcision remain about the same as the US.

>> ^dag:

I've honestly never heard of penile cancer. Ball cancer sure
>> ^hpqp:

[citation needed]
>> ^TangledThorns:
There many studies showing showing that uncut penises are more likely to have cancer than those that are circumcised. That is why you rarely if not never hear about penile cancer in the United States. In Europe there is a good chance you know someone who may have had suffered or died from penile cancer.

[citation needed]

>> ^TangledThorns:

There many studies showing showing that uncut penises are more likely to have cancer than those that are circumcised. That is why you rarely if not never hear about penile cancer in the United States. In Europe there is a good chance you know someone who may have had suffered or died from penile cancer.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I've honestly never heard of penile cancer. Ball cancer sure.>> ^TangledThorns:

There many studies showing showing that uncut penises are more likely to have cancer than those that are circumcised. That is why you rarely if not never hear about penile cancer in the United States. In Europe there is a good chance you know someone who may have had suffered or died from penile cancer.

There many studies showing showing that uncut penises are more likely to have cancer than those that are circumcised. That is why you rarely if not never hear about penile cancer in the United States. In Europe there is a good chance you know someone who may have had suffered or died from penile cancer.

I'm still searching the Japanese news sites for the truth about what went down at this meeting, but according to some people on the Japanese YouTube version of this video, this may have been a setup. The reason for all the cameras and shouting was supposedly because the majority of the audience in attendance that day were members of "Green Action" and "Greenpeace" who weren't even residents of the affected area. They basically came to further their own anti-nuclear agenda and brought the urine with them knowing that it wasn't these guys jobs to test it. Again, I'm not sure of the truth of all that. If I find out more I'll post again.

EDIT: Did a bit more research and found children from the Fukushima area have had their urine tested back in June, but only trace amounts of Cesium were found--not at any levels that would affect health (0.41~1.13 becquerels per liter of urine).

EDIT2: Yeah, it was a total setup. The whole meeting was organized by an NGO called Friends of Earth Japan (FoE), who have a strong anti-nuclear agenda (the page I linked to is their public announcement of the meeting, including handouts that detailed their strategy for the meeting). They called out to other groups like No Nukes More Hearts who share similar goals. On the No Nukes More Hearts web page that I linked to they encourage all members of the group, whether they are residents or not, to attend the meeting. Other groups that seem to be involved were the Fukushima Protect Children from Radiation Association, Fukushima Fukuro Club (similar to Greenpeace) and Greenpeace Japan, further stacking the audience.

These groups apparently invited government representatives for "negotiations" about the rights of people living in the stricken areas. Realizing the groups were there to grandstand and not actually discuss anything, the government officials eventually withdrew from the meeting--after nearly 2.5 hours of patiently trying to answer questions! The NGO groups quickly edited down and translated the original video of the meeting to further their own purposes, deleting the two hours of the video in which the government members listen to speeches given by various group leaders and try to answer questions from the audience.

You can see the original unedited video of the meeting here. It looks like the attending government officials were only given copies of the questions they would be asked moments before the meeting started (although in fairness if they had gone to the websites I linked to above they would have known what they were walking in to). Before the meeting even begins, the Fukushima Protect Children from Radiation Association drops a petition demanding all children be evacuated from Fukushima. Throughout the meeting, as the government officials try to patiently answer questions from the audience they are routinely interrupted by others who stand up and give speeches (there's a lot of talk about "protecting the children" which always gets a lot of applause).

So yeah, these guys got ambushed. It was basically a successful troll for these NGO groups.

EDIT 3: In the link to the original (uncut) meeting video, you can go to 1:02:00 to see where this clip starts. Notice this clip has been heavily edited and the government officials actually stuck around for ANOTHER HOUR to answer questions before being accosted by the urine-wielding brigade.

Here's the 35 minute uncut video of the creation.

SHOWstudio: Millie Brown - Live Studio (Uncut) from SHOWstudio on Vimeo.

Hay nice post. I had no idea this can be genetic. Better get my 2 year old checked up so he doesn't have to go trough what I went through at 24. That was some of the most physically painful memories of my life.

In reply to this comment by nanrod:
Here's my anecdotal two bits worth. There is a condition called phimosis (abnormally tight foreskin) which runs in my family. It can lead to chronic infections of the foreskin, urinary tract infections, kidney infections and ultimately lead to loss of kidney function. None of these are guaranteed to happen but they can't be predicted. My father was not circumcised at birth but required the procedure at the age of 15. He swore then that no son of his would go through the same thing so me and 3 brothers were circumcised. When my son was born we decided against it after much research but again he had to be circumcised at 9. Bottom line if a parent opts for circumcision for family medical reasons they shouldn't be condemned or criticized, but lacking a family history like mine I see no compelling reason for it.

Other than aesthetics, of course, uncut dicks are ugly.