>> ^lucky760:

>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^lucky760:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^lucky760:
She looks a bit like Elvira Mistress of the Dark in this video.
I find it odd that everyone finds her so "hot." She's cute and seems like a fun person to hang out with, but not so much hot really.

maybe it's because she IS cute and IS fun to hang out with MAKES her hot?
Shocking, I know, but some people find qualities other than the physical to be hot.

Not quite, but of course it depends on how you choose to interpret the term "hot." The most common application of the word in describing a person is in reference to their physical and, more specifically, sexual attraction.
It's atypical, to say the least, for a person to describe someone as hot in reference to a list of traits excluding their physicality. You hear "Man, that chick is totally just-okay looking and built like a preteen boy, but she is so effing hot, Broseph. I totally don't wanna do her, but I would enjoy hanging out having a conversation and glass of lemonade with her. She's scorching hot! High five!" not so much.
Cute? You betcha. Winning personality? So it would seem. Hot? Mmm... Big negatory on that one, Kimosabe. But let's just agree to disagree.

What isn't physically "hot" about her? It's never dawned on me that she is anything but. Do you mean hot like stick figure vomit faced model hot, cuz that ain't hot -- that's obnoxious. Or do you mean that her body isn't as toned as that of a hot womans? Either we have a different standard of beauty or I'm misunderstanding a piece of the hotness puzzle.

When I look at her I see an adolescent girl, and I don't tend to regard who I perceive to be young-looking, underdeveloped girls as hot pieces of ass. I'm realizing that one key requisite in my standard of hotness is the piece of meat woman must actually look like a (grown-ass) woman, and not a (still-maturing) teenager.
But that's just me.

@chilaxe except those people probably exist in a community that values them and gives them credit for the work they do and looks out for each other and have parents that put in place boundaries and consequences for bad behaviour and praise for good work done. And a feeling of love. They also feel a sense of pride in the small amount that they and their communities have, and will work to support and maintain that.

I'm not saying it's to do with how much you do or don't have, but more so that these kids come from families where the parents do not give support, respect or a feeling of self worth, so they feel like shit in themselves. Then they get no support or encouragement from their local community, so they feel no attachment or connection with their community, and so do shit like this because they feel like they don't belong that they are ostracised by the community etc.

Again, I'm not in anyway supporting or excusing what these thugs did, what I am saying is that this 'fucking take everything away from them and lock them all up' mentality is so wrong.

It's been shown time and f*cking time again, you give kids, adolescents, hell even adults, a feeling of accomplishment in a job, a feeling of connection with a community, a feeling of contribution to things at large and you end up with far happier people who, in turn, have a far greater respect for themselves and other people and their property.

Look back up the chain a bit before just cutting off the wrecking ball.

I guess it depends on the context. Puppies are cute too.

In reply to this comment by poolcleaner:
Cute = perceived jailbait

I'll remember that next time I go to flog myself for my sins.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^lucky760:
She looks a bit like Elvira Mistress of the Dark in this video.
I find it odd that everyone finds her so "hot." She's cute and seems like a fun person to hang out with, but not so much hot really.

maybe it's because she IS cute and IS fun to hang out with MAKES her hot?
Shocking, I know, but some people find qualities other than the physical to be hot.

Not quite, but of course it depends on how you choose to interpret the term "hot." The most common application of the word in describing a person is in reference to their physical and, more specifically, sexual attraction.
It's atypical, to say the least, for a person to describe someone as hot in reference to a list of traits excluding their physicality. You hear "Man, that chick is totally just-okay looking and built like a preteen boy, but she is so effing hot, Broseph. I totally don't wanna do her, but I would enjoy hanging out having a conversation and glass of lemonade with her. She's scorching hot! High five!" not so much.
Cute? You betcha. Winning personality? So it would seem. Hot? Mmm... Big negatory on that one, Kimosabe. But let's just agree to disagree.

What isn't physically "hot" about her? It's never dawned on me that she is anything but. Do you mean hot like stick figure vomit faced model hot, cuz that ain't hot -- that's obnoxious. Or do you mean that her body isn't as toned as that of a hot womans? Either we have a different standard of beauty or I'm misunderstanding a piece of the hotness puzzle.

When I look at her I see an adolescent girl, and I don't tend to regard who I perceive to be young-looking, underdeveloped girls as hot pieces of ass. I'm realizing that one key requisite in my standard of hotness is the piece of meat woman must actually look like a (grown-ass) woman, and not a (still-maturing) teenager.

But that's just me.

Cute = perceived jailbait

I'll remember that next time I go to flog myself for my sins.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^lucky760:
She looks a bit like Elvira Mistress of the Dark in this video.
I find it odd that everyone finds her so "hot." She's cute and seems like a fun person to hang out with, but not so much hot really.

maybe it's because she IS cute and IS fun to hang out with MAKES her hot?
Shocking, I know, but some people find qualities other than the physical to be hot.

Not quite, but of course it depends on how you choose to interpret the term "hot." The most common application of the word in describing a person is in reference to their physical and, more specifically, sexual attraction.
It's atypical, to say the least, for a person to describe someone as hot in reference to a list of traits excluding their physicality. You hear "Man, that chick is totally just-okay looking and built like a preteen boy, but she is so effing hot, Broseph. I totally don't wanna do her, but I would enjoy hanging out having a conversation and glass of lemonade with her. She's scorching hot! High five!" not so much.
Cute? You betcha. Winning personality? So it would seem. Hot? Mmm... Big negatory on that one, Kimosabe. But let's just agree to disagree.

What isn't physically "hot" about her? It's never dawned on me that she is anything but. Do you mean hot like stick figure vomit faced model hot, cuz that ain't hot -- that's obnoxious. Or do you mean that her body isn't as toned as that of a hot womans? Either we have a different standard of beauty or I'm misunderstanding a piece of the hotness puzzle.

When I look at her I see an adolescent girl, and I don't tend to regard who I perceive to be young-looking, underdeveloped girls as hot pieces of ass. I'm realizing that one key requisite in my standard of hotness is the piece of meat woman must actually look like a (grown-ass) woman, and not a (still-maturing) teenager.

But that's just me.

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^lucky760:
She looks a bit like Elvira Mistress of the Dark in this video.
I find it odd that everyone finds her so "hot." She's cute and seems like a fun person to hang out with, but not so much hot really.

maybe it's because she IS cute and IS fun to hang out with MAKES her hot?
Shocking, I know, but some people find qualities other than the physical to be hot.

Not quite, but of course it depends on how you choose to interpret the term "hot." The most common application of the word in describing a person is in reference to their physical and, more specifically, sexual attraction.
It's atypical, to say the least, for a person to describe someone as hot in reference to a list of traits excluding their physicality. You hear "Man, that chick is totally just-okay looking and built like a preteen boy, but she is so effing hot, Broseph. I totally don't wanna do her, but I would enjoy hanging out having a conversation and glass of lemonade with her. She's scorching hot! High five!" not so much.
Cute? You betcha. Winning personality? So it would seem. Hot? Mmm... Big negatory on that one, Kimosabe. But let's just agree to disagree.

What isn't physically "hot" about her? It's never dawned on me that she is anything but. Do you mean hot like stick figure vomit faced model hot, cuz that ain't hot -- that's obnoxious. Or do you mean that her body isn't as toned as that of a hot womans? Either we have a different standard of beauty or I'm misunderstanding a piece of the hotness puzzle.

When I look at her I see an adolescent girl, and I don't tend to regard who I perceive to be young-looking, underdeveloped girls as hot pieces of ass. I'm realizing that one key requisite in my standard of hotness is the piece of meat woman must actually look like a (grown-ass) woman, and not a (still-maturing) teenager.

But that's just me.

@chilaxe I like how you ignore the central point I make, and just respond to random phrases out of context.

For the most part, I think you're wanting to focus on specifics largely based on the extant paradigm, while I'm making more of a statement about a desired ideal that would require a paradigm shift.

I don't deny the reality that education requires resources, and that it will need some mechanism of economic support, I'm just saying I don't think education should be denied to students who for whatever reason don't have the money to pay for it.

I also don't see why education should always be looked at as an economic investment. I happen to excel in subjects that apply well to a certain class of professional type of work, but I am interested in all sorts of topics for which I have no practical use.

I guess I am confused about your focus on people getting "pointless" degrees. I guess on one level my response is "pointless to whom?" Pointless to employers, or pointless to the person who wanted to study the topic? Why should employers get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?

On another level, like I said before, I our educational system could stand to be a bit more paternalistic in shepherding adolescents through the transition from a purely academic experience into a career path that suits some mix of their preferences and talents. But I guess I feel like schools (of all types) are largely interested in exposing children to purely academic pursuits, while justifying it in some vague sense as some form of mundane job training.

But I've never taken, nor seen offered, a college course I thought was "pointless". Certainly there's stuff I'm not interested in, stuff that would be remedial, and plenty that doesn't pose any obvious use in the job market (philosophy comes to mind), but in terms of helping people realize their full potential as human beings, all of it seems quite worthwhile.

One thing I've noticed about planking and now this owling thing, it's that the Australian youth are a bunch of dopes...

Why can't that be normal adolescents and shoot up schools like in the good ol' U.S. of A?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I am a little confuzled about calling @Skeeve and my conversation both true and a non sequitur. I guess because I am addressing a more theoretical, man kind building question and you a more practical one. Your talking about the more practical, of making things work now, I am talking more about how I want things to work, for always. A the difference between the tangible and the ideal I guess.

It seems you weren't all that confused, that's exactly what I was getting at.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I have been considering the statement "the needs of the many..." for the course of a few weeks now.

...

I find that the statement of "the needs of the many..." very closely relates to the Democratic position.


I think the "the needs of the many..." quote is a pretty crude statement of the type of moral reasoning you find on the left. The more refined version can be found described in John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, but if you want a brief synopsis of the philosophy, try this.

I would also say most modern liberals tend more towards a Rawlsian political philosophy.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
When your tribe is 20 people, and the fate of your people all hang in the balance of routine decisions, evolutionary speaking, to survive, it is easier to remove the rational component of this choice. The rational implications of every choice you make determining the fate of your entire race is a burden that doesn't aid in decision making. It is much "better" to program in an emotional response and have that being post-rationalize later, intelligence is actually more of a burden than a tool in this area. This way, we remove the impotence one might face in the light of such a larger than life issue, and set in that mind a continuing sequence of emotional ties to the event through post-rationalizations.

I totally agree. I tend to think of a lot of what humans use rationality for is to rationalize decisions they really made at a gut/emotional level.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the reason Democracy works so well, given this situation, is it very closely mimics the "rules of the jungle." By that, I mean force. Democracy is an interesting formalization of the rules of the jungle. Instead of the force being a stick or a knife, it is a vote.

This, on the other hand, I think is totally false. Democracy is a tool to try to tie large, diverse groups into a single tribe by getting rid of the "tribal leader makes the decisions for the tribe" aspect of tribal society. The reason we want to do that is that even though we're no longer just a pack of 20 trying to deal with tigers in a jungle, we are still facing all sorts of threats from the outside world (e.g. disease, natural disaster, food scarcity, water scarcity, etc.), as well as threats generated by our inability to cohesively work as a unified tribe (war, pollution, persecution, extreme resource inequality), and that we should all be united in dealing with that common cause.

The "rules of the jungle" is more something you see in markets. The idea in most right-wing philosophy is to keep the idea that tribes should stay entirely hierarchical, and that no tribe should feel fundamentally obligated to any other tribe. Strong tribes should be allowed to amass resources they take from weaker tribes, and weaker tribes get killed off. Theoretically there's some method for preventing these inter-tribe conflicts from being violent, but nobody's worked out a way to do that other than creating a state who will use sticks and knives (and guns and nukes) to make people play by the rules of the market by force.

The evolutionary component of markets is really the key to what its proponents like -- evolution brings us forward progress, after all. The position over here on the left is that morally speaking, evolution is cruel. People like me see the benefits of markets, and the moral downsides, and want to try to find a way to make markets less cruel. People much further to my left are moral absolutists who want them destroyed because they're inhumane.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The course of discovery seems to be without end for man. It seems inevitable, that in time, each human will have access to such a level of technology that any one person could end all life on the planet with little to no effort. Our only current solutions for it are that of liberty, which would only take one crazy person to end it all, or regulations, of which would have to be of the most extreme kind to protect against knowledge that is easy to acquire and use. It seems that the current rules that bind this planet along with mans advancement in technology have set us on a collision course with a cruel destiny. While not a certainty, I do believe it is certain that the tools of Democratic force will not save us from our own self imposed destruction.

I think the way to deal with it is to realize that the choice between "regulations on world-destroying weapons" and "liberty demands that crazy people have the right to own world-destroying weapons" is actually a really, really easy choice, since one of them ends with no one left alive on Earth...

Will "democracy" protect us from being stupid about that choice? No.

But if humanity is ever going to make it through its technological adolescence, we're going to have to set aside these childish notions that "liberty" only exists if you can completely disavow any sense of obligation to the rest of humanity.

@Ryjkyj

I appreciate your sincere reply, and do not want you to take my comments as personal attacks; it is the fact that such a practice can be so widely accepted despite having no, and I repeat my claim, no ethical nor medical basis, that really angers me. As for "age of consent", I am talking about informed consent, which I imagine you gave/had when you first had sex. A baby/child cannot give such consent (whether an adolescent under community/family pressure can is another question).

You say: "Saying that circumcision is akin to cutting off toes is ridiculous." Au contraire, it is actually quite a good analogy if one implies the little toes; they are not primordial (but do help balance), and without them you can be sure of never getting ingrown toenails on said toes. One cannot have phimosis (a rare and almost always benign ailment) without a foreskin, ergo the analogy is applicable. I've got one with earlobes if you prefer...

Nowhere did I suggest FGM and circumcision are alike, and I never would. They are comparable, though, inasmuch as they are both cultural traditions from barbaric times, upheld by religious beliefs.

The pain factor is a red herring, to distract from the real ethical problem: tampering with someone's body, irretrievably, without their consent. In Africa, some tribes still scar their babies' faces to mark their belonging; would it be okay if done medically and under anesthesia? "I'll tell them, 'some people are scarred, some not', no biggy"?



@asynchronice

Look up "mutilation" in the dictionary; no sensationalism whatsoever. Maybe it seems that way because most of society is completely desensitized to the disgusting and unethical practice that is infantile circumcision.

Circumcision is like sex change in two ways:

1) It should be an adult's personal decision (to do it to themselves, of course).
2) It should NOT be done to kids.



"If you are arguing outside of the aesthetics or practicality, I don't have time for you."

I guess you don't give a shit about ethics and human rights then. Well fuck you.

For those of us who are, shall we say, less than interested in athletics: he's trying to get himself traded. Phil Jackson, the Laker coach who's led Team Kobe to five championships in twelve years, has been going on and on about how he's retiring this year--or at least not coaching the Lakers anymore. The team's been falling apart for weeks now, and this game was the poop-icing on the shitcake. Dallas swept the Lakers in a four game series, losing this final game by 36. That's thirty-six points. It was a shitshow, and this wasn't even the only pouty, adolescent flagrant foul of the game. Bynum doesn't wanna stay in L.A., so he made it nigh impossible for the team to keep him. I don't know if the rez is good enough to see the expression on his face, but it's very "I don't give a severed rats penis."

Team Kobe was expecting to get handed another ring; they forgot about working for it. Fuck 'em all. Except Phil Jackson. Retire In Peace, Phil.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Oh, come on, this was seminal to my adolescence! *quality

thanks brother.
reach arounds are on me =)

Oh, come on, this was seminal to my adolescence! *quality

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^dannym3141:
@sgundamx I still think my comment stands - article or no article. Unless you can categorically state that there was no abuse before advertisements, there's no evidence for the sentiment that she's insinuating.
There's so many people in this thread arguing with other people, often times even two people in agreement are having some sort of tiff. I'll tell you why;
Firstly, males are less likely to notice sexism towards females because it doesn't affect them, doesn't even happen when they're around perhaps.
Secondly, women are more likely to notice sexism towards females because it only happens to them or around them, and women who are aware of sexism (or perhaps anti sexism campaigners) are more likely to see false positives, times when there was no sexism, just plain ignorance or rudeness, and it's chalked down to sexism.
Thirdly, everyone is different - some guys think they wouldn't be bothered if they were a girl and all they saw were skinny girls, and then you'll get girls saying "how can you say that? oh yes you would!" and then they'll get a reply saying "how can you say i would? oh no i wouldn't!" and so on.
But let's at least be fair about the matter. People saying "how would you feel if ALL YOU SAW was toned and fit handsome guys?" - this is not the situation. If that were the case, all your friends and relatives and everyone you ever saw or knew about would have to be skinny, and you were the only one that wasn't. In actual fact, advertisements display something utterly bullshit but then you go out into the street and see a load of perfectly average people. I'm not saying whether you should or should not get offended, but at least make the argument fair - it is advertisements and media, not everything

Sorry, what?
I don't see anywhere in my comment or the video where people are insinuating that there was no "abuse" (I'm not sure what you mean by the use of this word) before advertisements. I stated--in several posts--that the advertisements are both a cause (maintaining the status quo) and an effect of a societal norm that makes it okay to objectify women. And both I and the presenter in the video pointed out that objectifying a person is one of the first steps taken when someone wishes to commit violence against another person. Therefore, these ads are basically fostering a social atmosphere where it is okay to dehumanize women, to value them only for their appearance, and that seems extremely dangerous to me.
The objectification of women is a problem that extends way beyond just advertising--it pervades all of our mass media: movies, tv, and music. And why does it pervade our mass media? Because it works. Because we've accepted it as normal. It's no fluke that the cosmetics industry is a $1.9 billion dollar industry with around 3% growth a year and fantastic profits or that the diet industry rakes in $55 billion dollars a year (as of 2006) and is still growing. It's not a coincidence that rates of eating disorders in adolescents are rising. It's not solely the ads that are responsible for this, but the message--that gets reinforced constantly by the media and often by our own peers--that our worth as a human being is directly related to how well we fit the images we are bombarded with daily. Like she said in the video, we may walk out the door and see that what is being presented is impossible to obtain but that doesn't seem to stop us for striving for it anyway as the statistics I presented above show.


In the same way - sorry, what?

I originally stated that insinuating that abuse came from adverts objectifying women was a poor argument, and then when you replied saying abuse comes from objectification, i replied saying that it wasn't fair to say adverts cause abuse. I haven't read your massive post because the snippets i skimmed through didn't even seem to relate to what i was saying.

Nice talking with you, but i don't think we're having the same conversation.

>> ^dannym3141:

@sgundamx I still think my comment stands - article or no article. Unless you can categorically state that there was no abuse before advertisements, there's no evidence for the sentiment that she's insinuating.
There's so many people in this thread arguing with other people, often times even two people in agreement are having some sort of tiff. I'll tell you why;
Firstly, males are less likely to notice sexism towards females because it doesn't affect them, doesn't even happen when they're around perhaps.
Secondly, women are more likely to notice sexism towards females because it only happens to them or around them, and women who are aware of sexism (or perhaps anti sexism campaigners) are more likely to see false positives, times when there was no sexism, just plain ignorance or rudeness, and it's chalked down to sexism.
Thirdly, everyone is different - some guys think they wouldn't be bothered if they were a girl and all they saw were skinny girls, and then you'll get girls saying "how can you say that? oh yes you would!" and then they'll get a reply saying "how can you say i would? oh no i wouldn't!" and so on.
But let's at least be fair about the matter. People saying "how would you feel if ALL YOU SAW was toned and fit handsome guys?" - this is not the situation. If that were the case, all your friends and relatives and everyone you ever saw or knew about would have to be skinny, and you were the only one that wasn't. In actual fact, advertisements display something utterly bullshit but then you go out into the street and see a load of perfectly average people. I'm not saying whether you should or should not get offended, but at least make the argument fair - it is advertisements and media, not everything


Sorry, what?

I don't see anywhere in my comment or the video where people are insinuating that there was no "abuse" (I'm not sure what you mean by the use of this word) before advertisements. I stated--in several posts--that the advertisements are both a cause (maintaining the status quo) and an effect of a societal norm that makes it okay to objectify women. And both I and the presenter in the video pointed out that objectifying a person is one of the first steps taken when someone wishes to commit violence against another person. Therefore, these ads are basically fostering a social atmosphere where it is okay to dehumanize women, to value them only for their appearance, and that seems extremely dangerous to me.

The objectification of women is a problem that extends way beyond just advertising--it pervades all of our mass media: movies, tv, and music. And why does it pervade our mass media? Because it works. Because we've accepted it as normal. It's no fluke that the cosmetics industry is a $1.9 billion dollar industry with around 3% growth a year and fantastic profits or that the diet industry rakes in $55 billion dollars a year (as of 2006) and is still growing. It's not a coincidence that rates of eating disorders in adolescents are rising. It's not solely the ads that are responsible for this, but the message--that gets reinforced constantly by the media and often by our own peers--that our worth as a human being is directly related to how well we fit the images we are bombarded with daily. Like she said in the video, we may walk out the door and see that what is being presented is impossible to obtain but that doesn't seem to stop us for striving for it anyway as the statistics I presented above show.

Ummm...I was referring to this: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/TL;DR
>> ^kceaton1:

Terse/Deal.
Submit->OK.
>> ^doogle:
Teal Dear.
I meant: tl:dr.
>> ^kceaton1:
This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).
Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.
If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).
This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.
BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).
Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.
What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...
/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".