Who is this? Bob has never once replied with such decent English or well researched arguments. Makes me think this is a cut and paste except the last line. What's your source? OAN? Breitbart?

$100?! Try millions in donations to his campaign that he's consistently treated like a private piggy bank. Despite his promise to fund his own campaign, he does the opposite and funds himself with his campaign. Pharmaceutical companies stand to make billions if everyone takes it, he knows who butters his bread, and so do we.
Before you say it's not enough money for him to sell out, remember he sold out a career ambassador for $300000 from Russian backed Ukrainians.

Exactly what anti Trump media am I believing? You don't know where my information comes from, do you? It must drive you crazy to not know which reputable source to discount, deride, and denigrate.

97% of all media is ANTI TRUMP? You're not that dumb and must realize this can't be true. Could it be that 97% of all fact is anti Trump because his actions are indefensible? Seems more reasonable and likely.

Trump is pushing it like a cure, and Giuliani was thrown off Twitter for saying it was one that's 100% effective, a pure dangerous lie. Check his portfolio, I bet he's got stocks in it too.
Talk to ex or current military, the biggest customers, they'll tell you they would rather have malaria than take it again. In the private medical world, it's a drug of last resort because of the life altering bad effects (and which are you implying aren't bad with the quotes?). When you're going to die without it, it can't hurt. When you're thinking it's a cure and taking it when you aren't even sick, like many are based on Trump's sales pitch, it definitely will hurt many that might otherwise be fine.

Con man bad.

The report cited by the HuffPost is from a New York Times story that said: “Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, the French drugmaker that makes Plaquenil, the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine.”

Trump’s personal financial interest, however, does not include a stake in Sanofi–and the New York Times did not claim it did. Instead, Trump’s financial disclosures show that his three family trusts each had investments in a $10.3 billion Dodge & Cox mutual fund that owns shares in Sanofi, the world’s fifth-largest drugmaker by prescription sales. As of its latest disclosures, those holdings amount to just 3.3 percent of the fund’s holdings.

Trump’s most recent financial disclosure forms lists holdings in the Dodge & Cox International Fund valued between $1,001 and $15,000. That means Trump holds a maximum stake in the mutual funds of $45,000, giving him an indirect interest in Sanofi of $1,485 at the most.

His “financial interest” in Sanofi, which has a market capitalization of nearly $58 billion, could be as low as $99.10.






Fuck your right! Trump can make $ pushing the drug $100 bucks --WOW

Why do you believe EVERY THING the media pushes about Trump? 97% of all media is ANTI TRUMP . Your not dumb and must realize this cant be true.


Also the drug is an alternative that is being investigated. All the "BAD" effects are the same for its original intended use but still prescribed?

Orange man GOOD. MSNBC etc BAD.

Automation is not the only problem, true. But here is the funniest part. Everything in a free market is commodified. That is for sale. This includes life saving services even. I.e., a free market. And yet people somehow complain when corporations invest in politics. They claim that investments should not be made in that sector, which I laugh at...

But anyways, to suggest that corporations will lower prices (I.e., profits) just because transportation costs go down is ignoring traditional responses. Lets say grocery stores--which have enormous competition and have been failing let and right--jacked up prices because of rising fuel costs...then fuel went to 1.70 a gallon. Whew, those (lack) of savings are rolling on in... When the labor becomes 0 dollars, we shall see exactly that back...

Now, with that said, hell yeah automate driving. I never implied we shouldn't. Just the 39,000 lives saved, insurance costs, etc are worth it. But I am pointing out a cumalative stacking of bad effects coming up (which have already been slowly hitting.)

This is a very interesting question that I've thought quite a lot about during my life (to myself, not in any sort of professional capacity).

The conclusions that I have come to (so far) are:
I think that, yes, religion in general terms IS a significant (but it is a stretch to say the ONLY) restraint on a pretty large number of people. Which is a prospect that I personally have a negative and pessimistic reaction to, similar to what it sounds like you do.

However, I think that there are lots of mitigating circumstances. First, many different religions currently provide that restraint to people. And in the past, many many more religions provided it to even more people. Many of those different religions have been very very different. Some have been near polar opposites. That proves that if your goal is restraining people from being utterly evil, and someone suggests that religion has made or is making a noble effort towards that (like your uncle), the positive aspects they are cheering for are not unique to any single religion, or dogma, or whatever.

If one accepts that many many diverse and completely different religions can potentially have the positive effects that we're looking for, then the actual source of those effects can not be something specific to any one religion. Instead, it has to be something that is held in common by all such religions.

Religions are so diverse and different, it might be hard to imagine something that they have in common. No specific god is held in common, even though all the Abrahamic religions might arguably share that aspect. Not even the simple idea of a god or gods or creator is far from universal; Buddhists revere no god.

Yet I believe that there is one easily overlooked thing that all religions DO have in common. Humanity. They all come from flawed but usually well-meaning people.

However, atheists hold that humanity in common with religions as well. And that makes me believe that if we understand humanity better, either through psychology, or empathy, or whatever, we can achieve the positive effects of religions without the religions themselves. Certainly without the stone-age dogmatic nonsense -- which tends to have arguably as many if not more BAD effects as good. This actually gives me great hope for humanity; rather the opposite to the conclusion that I came to originally when pondering the question.

There may always be people who have no empathy, and for whom nothing would serve to restrain them from what humanity at large would easily identify as great evil. No religion will handle such individuals any better than no religion ... so I guess I don't lose any sleep over that.

As always, this guy has some pretty bad effects. Notice, for instance, near the beginning of the video (:45), there is a black dot that I guess is supposed to be a bullet hole in the chest of the guy in the background, but as he falls, the dot remains stationary. hehe

I'd bet this guy uses ParticleIllusion.

@SDGundamX

I'm still curious if you would have been offended if the video called believers in Zeus and Poseidon idiots. Is it belief in itself (any belief lacking empirical evidence against it) that you think should be shielded from intolerance or is it beliefs shared by many people? If I called someone who believed in Zeus a complete nutter, would that offend you? If it made them happy and comfortable with their lives.

I'm slightly confused by the multiverse angle, I'm not sure how the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have a bigger likelihood of existing in another universe (as a magical being always existing without evolving into place), I guess it's possible to speculate in a universe that functions in a way that gives rise to Him, but how does that contradict the observations made on how this universe functions?

About the atrocities, I think that we still have atrocities going on today. Just take the deaths of millions of Africans from AIDS because they were taught not to use condoms. You probably think this is an atrocity, but it's bought with money pumped into the catholic church from millions of believers, most of them I would assume moderates, that lend their indirect support to the continuation of these teachings (although lately Ive heard the Pope has changed his mind, a bit too late for all those who are dead). And yes, the Church might be separate from the belief, but its built up on a base of belief and given power and cover by believers. And in 20 years we will hear the same story again "that was then, this is now, I agree that was an atrocity but now we're rid of all that, I don't believe in that, nobody I knows believes in that anymore". And then on to the next decision that affects other people negatively. And as such religion is always safe, the atrocities are always in the past and criticism can be deflected or ignored.

Look, I feel as I'm rambling but my basic point is this: Either you have good reasons for believing in something, or you don't. What makes someone happy might _seem_ right for him or her, but as a species we owe our continued survival and common well-being to realize our limits and overcome them. One such limit is that as pattern-seekers we encounter false positives all the time (this surely benefited us very early in our development). In ancient times a flood must mean the God's are angry. A bad harvest must mean the field is cursed. A modern version would be feeling religion gives our life meaning and happiness and must therefor contain some deeper truth. I simply cannot see how this follows.

Realizing someone is making claims based on flawed arguments we owe it to voice our opinions and concerns, even if harshly as in calling someone an idiot.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chtierna" title="member since September 25th, 2008" class="profilelink">chtierna
With regards to Elvis (or 9/11 conspiracy, "birthers," the Apollo mission conspiracy theories, and so one) I think there actually is more than enough evidence--empirical evidence--to disprove the claims.
With regards to any deity, I've already said I'm an atheist (i.e. I don't believe in them). But that does not mean they do not exist (actually, if you subscribe to the multiverse model of the universe then you could even go so far as to say it is likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist somewhere, though not necessarily in our universe. ). It simply means that they don't meet my own personal burden of proof to warrant belief.
In regards to your next point, I think we need to separate religious belief from actions taken in the name of religion. Many faithful and non-faithful alike would label those acts you listed above as atrocities. Just because someone happens to be religious in no way means they are going to start condoning those acts you listed. And the reasons those things happen extends far beyond religion--we can't examine those acts without also examining the historical and socio-cultural contexts in which they occur. To merely look at, for instance, suicide bombers from a religious perspective seems rather simplistic to me given the historical, cultural, and political events that have led up to the idea terrorist acts are a valid tool for applying political pressure.
I've said this before (in other threads) but to me religion is a tool. Any tool can be turned into an improvised weapon. And that is what I believe has happened in those cases you described. It's clear religion can be used for great good or great evil. I think it is also clear the major monotheistic religions are going to have to change going into the future. They are going to have to be re-conceptualized to maximize the potential good and minimize or (if possible) downright eliminate the potential bad effects. Here is one book that has already called for such a re-conceptualization for Christianity (haven't read the book, by the way though the premise sounds interesting... check out the reviews).

@chtierna

With regards to Elvis (or 9/11 conspiracy, "birthers," the Apollo mission conspiracy theories, and so one) I think there actually is more than enough evidence--empirical evidence--to disprove the claims.

With regards to any deity, I've already said I'm an atheist (i.e. I don't believe in them). But that does not mean they do not exist (actually, if you subscribe to the multiverse model of the universe then you could even go so far as to say it is likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist somewhere, though not necessarily in our universe. ). It simply means that they don't meet my own personal burden of proof to warrant belief.

In regards to your next point, I think we need to separate religious belief from actions taken in the name of religion. Many faithful and non-faithful alike would label those acts you listed above as atrocities. Just because someone happens to be religious in no way means they are going to start condoning those acts you listed. And the reasons those things happen extends far beyond religion--we can't examine those acts without also examining the historical and socio-cultural contexts in which they occur. To merely look at, for instance, suicide bombers from a religious perspective seems rather simplistic to me given the historical, cultural, and political events that have led up to the idea terrorist acts are a valid tool for applying political pressure.

I've said this before (in other threads) but to me religion is a tool. Any tool can be turned into an improvised weapon. And that is what I believe has happened in those cases you described. It's clear religion can be used for great good or great evil. I think it is also clear the major monotheistic religions are going to have to change going into the future. They are going to have to be re-conceptualized to maximize the potential good and minimize or (if possible) downright eliminate the potential bad effects. Here is one book that has already called for such a re-conceptualization for Christianity (haven't read the book, by the way though the premise sounds interesting... check out the reviews).

Well actually its not that crazy a story.

take chinoble for example the airea around there has done quite well , simply becuse the general shit humans do on a day to day bassis is far worse than what the radation has done , so annything that makes humans piss off can be quite good.


arguably the same thing might happen for fish in golf coast granted some specaies of bird fish and sea life will die and be badly effected , but others that were getting raped by all the fishing might flurish due to the lack of human involvment in the airea.


allthough its likely humans will make things still worse by using checmicals to disperese the ion that in th elong run have a worse effect on the enviroment than the iol on its own.

Sure it is fair to dismiss ALL religion. Just because you are a little crazy in that you believe in magical forces controlling the universe doesn't make it ANY more legitimate.

Of course there are non-violent religious people. Of course there are religious people that don't piss me off as much as the tools I'm mostly talking about, that doesn't mean that they don't suspend reason for something with is just illogical.

I can definitely understand that there are "good teachings" in many religions and I have no problem with that, but it is the fact that those are indistinguishable from the other parts OF THE SAME RELIGIOUS TEXTS which call for violence, war, and intolerance which lead me to my ultimate statement: religion needs to go.

Want to teach about tolerance, love and understanding? Go right ahead, you don't need mana from heaven, Jesus walking on water, crucifixions or Abraham almost killing his son, Mohammed in a bear suit whatever to get there. Secularize the teachings, remove the mumbo-jumbo and the magic rings of power and I'll listen. The problem with mixing good teachings with this suspension of rational thought is that then you are subject to the whims of clergymen who invent their own bullshit (like priests not being able to marry so the church can inherit their property) in order to advance themselves. Teach people to be good and to think, don't teach them superstition, fear and ultimately hate. Yeah yeah, some of these stories in the bible are innocent enough, but by painting this magical harrypotteresque world they open in the doors to people believing in things that WILL have a bad effect on them.

Again I remember a funny debate I had with a Jesus freak: I was discussing abortion and at some point the Jesus freak didn't like the logic I used and tried to convince me that his logic was superior by spouting the following example:

"Unlike you, I believe everyone deserves to live... even someone like YOU. And that is because my god teaches me this."

Think about that for a moment, he was essentially telling me that because of my ideas about abortion and woman's rights, he fundamentally felt that I deserved to die, but only because his god told him not to think that way he was willing to concede me my life.

I do good things because it is better for all of us to be good to each other, not because some magical being threatens me if I don't do what he says. Who is a better person, the one who does good deeds because he wants to do good deeds, or the one who does them because he's afraid of the consequences if he doesn't?

Religion needs to go.


>> ^Myrmidian:

>> ^ponceleon:
I keep saying this in all these clips and I'll keep doing so:
Religion needs to go.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss all religions on the basis of the actions of a few unintelligent or uninformed people.

Tags for this video have been changed from '90s, cheesy, bad effects, good show' to '80s, cheesy, bad effects, good show' - edited by shuac

Definitely *geek there.

And ARGH! That shows why George Lucas is so WRONG in 'updating' his old movies and doing his damnedest to not let anyone see the originals. The ORIGNAL never had a STUPID 2D plane shock wave emanating from the Death Star... and this is supposed to be a HISTORY of SFX, well, that's not the original is it, that's not from 1976.

Oh, nooo, why would you put Spiderman in there? Some of the most obvious CG character animation in a big budget film ever... baaaad example.

And ALSO to take the one really bad effect in the WHOLE of Benginman Button... the 'youthening' of Brad Pitt (everything else was indeed superb) as an example... *sigh*

And hate to break it to the maker of this, but seeing as the first clip is from a film in 1900, and the last in 2008.. um... this'd be 108 years of inspiration.

I don't think I'd want to be in this guy's class really.

Bad effect.

^communism.

Good positions expressed in the video. All this stems from the plague of tolerance infecting the otherwise more enlightened communities of the world. Simple minds look at the bad effects of misdirected intolerance in the past and blame the wrong part of the equation.

Intolerant fuckheads fuck everything up because they're fuckheads, not because they're intolerant.

>> ^Memorare:
That was 2006, it's now 2008, so did they make the switch - does Iran now trade in Euros?
Either way it's just a matter of time, the US is in it's end of empire phase. Actually the Chinese could topple the dollar any time they wanted, with little consequence to themselves.

Yes, they made the switch. The Iranian oil bourse now deals in Euros.

However, for now they only support cash operations (i.e., one can't trade future contracts), so the bad effects on the dollar are partially contained. By far the largest commodities trading is done by speculators who have no need for the actual goods. These guys trade future contracts, who are bought near their expiration date by people who actually need the goods.

I wore cloth diapers, and I remember no bad effects. Don't remember anything from back then in fact.