He does have a bigger point thou that isn't mentioned: "The Splashback".. You know, the moment when that toilet water shoots up your ass when you drop the deuce... But in fact, Butters gonna have hemorrhoids and possible even worse conditions (never google rectal prolapse...). By facing in, you're back is straight up, thighs are close to 90 degrees to your back.. It's good for offices, typing on your desktop. That is not how humans defecation works. We are squatters, closer you are to fetal position, the better. That leads to straight ejection where as straight up sitting pushes it out in an angle.. Pretty logical but totally opposite to the way we are going. The low seats are rising up all the time.. You may have to use a shallow stool to prop your feet up.

Also, toilet seat designers, if you see this: males have this appendix between their legs. When you sit down it points downwards in approx 45 degree angle. It does not point straight down nor does in simply vanish. Mine is perfectly average size and the toilet seat i have is very conventional, regular unit. Why does my dong has to touch the inside of the rim everytime i poop? And when are you gonna do something about that splashback? never? Thought so, you are pretty much just morons copy pasting 150 year old design that was a hole in a plane and no water beneath. Note, russians made an effort but that is even more horrible than anything we have now; it's basically a flat plane with the water on the front.. Everything fine except that the flat part is so close to your butt that you have to slowly rise, the water does not flush the dookie but you have to move yourself.. The worst toilet seat i've even encountered outside Polish trains.

Man, there's a lot of semi-accidental puns.. Poop is a funny thing, it seems..

"I would have preferred no deaths." Agreed.

"I would have preferred no slavery in the first place." Even better.

"But if 620000 deaths is the cost for millions of people and over 100 million of their ancestors to live in freedom"

It need not have been this way. But it happened. That's not the moral bankruptcy.
Preferring the maiming and death of 620,000+ people (the overwhelming majority of whom were not even slaveowners), over freeing the slaves through payment (simply because you don't like the idea of it!), yes, that's morally bankrupt.

You may say, "well paying for them" was not an option. But the objection was that you find paying for liberation more repugnant than the slaughter of 620,000.. which is what I call morally bankrupt..

(Somehow, I doubt that you could be so morally bankrupt and believe such things -- and still function as a human being -- so it seems that you may just be trolling, simply to disagree with me, in which case, this non-debate is beneath me.).

No, he is mad that he can't find his dick beneath his ass...

You call sitting in a mansion collecting dividends work? The bottom 20% are on welfare and still work there fast food job, something the 1% would never even consider because it is so far beneath them. Bob you need to come back into the real world sometime.

I ain't a scientist but I have read a bit into this. Basically, a cavern forms underground beneath a body of water, or where water has seeped through. Over time the cavern gets bigger and bigger and bigger until it collapses and everything above it sinks down.

That's why videos of sinkholes occur by water or in a region with bayous, etc. I don't know about every type of sinkhole situation but this is the most common that I know of. (I lived in Florida and it happens a lot.) It's also possible for older pockets to exist where water once flowed, and then the earth just needed some change that eventually breaks the thin layer above.

Science, right? Everything is in a state of constant change. Eroding. Dissolving. Shifting. Sliding. ERUPTING. SWALLOWING. I'm talking about science now -- and not biology.

I replaced the embed code of the second video you posted with the backup. You have to click the link to the backup beneath the video and then click "Replace Current Embed with this Backup", but you have to be a ruby member or higher to do that. I then used the invocation *notdead.

The wording "is funded by the US gov" is misleading though to in that it implies the majority of funding for Egypt's military is coming from the US. That's simply not true. The US donates upwards of 1 billion to the Egypt as a whole, the percentage that goes direct to military isn't disclosed that I can see, but it's safe to say with the military running/owning the entire country it is primarily going to the military. The flipside is that so is the majority of Egypt's domestic $230 billion GDP. The US contribution no doubt influences Egypt's military decision making, but not so as to dominate them. More over, purely diplomatic pressure from the US will hold more sway over any party in Egypt than that kind of money.

All that said, I don't see the omission as so terribly glaring. Pressure from American foreign policy, and foreign policy of ALL world governments, plays a role on Egyptian domestic matters, but it's ranking for overall influence is beneath the topics hit in the talk. The talk seems well prioritized, and US financial aid ranks even lower than policy pressure so I don't begrudge, or even find surprise, at it's omission.

If you overstate the influence of America it can quickly reach a racist point where the underlying logic is that the poor egyptians and arabs are so weak and ineffectual that they can't be expected to stand against a mere whim of white westerners.

This beast maintains her appeal for a few reasons-The ones that are left still run as they did when they were manufactured(they're brick-shithouses in the durability/reliability categories) and like most simply-designed diesel engines maintain their dependability-Combine these with the enthusiastic appeal of our collective industrial heritage and the vibrating ground beneath her pad when she's purring and you have a recipe for an unquenchable, historically relevant enthusiasm.

Did I mention they'll run forever??

That is truly great. Who knew beneath a kitchen floor one could find such a treasure?

It reminds me of the Maryland state tax on the amount of rainfall that falls on your property. But it's unclear to me what "water" here refers to. Is it the underground river going beneath my house? Is it Lake Michigan? Is it the collected rainfall in my wheelbarrow? Is it the ocean? Is it the water in the Las Vegas hotel fountain? Is it the reservoir?

"Ownership," in the legal sense of the word, for each of these may vary. Does the "government" own all of these? Is there a pragmatic and/or legal distinction between "owning" and "controlling?"

The Colorado River dries up before it reaches the ocean. California complains that not enough water reaches CA and that NV and others are using up too much of it. Who owns the water coming down the Colorado River?

True but the Atheist also holds the "belief" that there is not GOD. So which belief is more correct? For me to get into a biblical debate with you and the atheist sift community would be pointless. It's like the saying you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. So this makes me search the web for other ways to argue the point. Here is 1 of them.

Mathematically speaking evolution falls flat on it face..
Lifted from site: http://www.freewebs.com/proofofgod/whataretheodds.htm



Suppose you take ten pennies and mark them from 1 to 10. Put them in your pocket and give them a good shake. Now try to draw them out in sequence from 1 to 10, putting each coin back in your pocket after each draw.

Your chance of drawing number 1 is 1 to 10.
Your chance of drawing 1 & 2 in succession is 1 in 100.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2 & 3 in succession would be one in a thousand.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2, 3 & 4 in succession would be one in 10,000.

And so on, until your chance of drawing from number 1 to number 10 in succession would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in 10 billion. The object in dealing with so simple a problem is to show how enormously figures multiply against chance.

Sir Fred Hoyle similarly dismisses the notion that life could have started by random processes:

Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve a Rubik’s cube. The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body's 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.

Now, just imagine, if life as we know it had come into existence by a stroke of chance, how much time would it have taken? To quote the biophysicist, Frank Allen:

Proteins are the essential constituents of all living cells, and they consist of the five elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur, with possibly 40,000 atoms in the ponderous molecule. As there are 92 chemical elements in nature, all distributed at random, the chance that these five elements may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time necessary to finish the task, can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, has made the computation and finds that the odds against such an occurrence are 10^160, that is 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number far too large to be expressed in words. The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone would require many, almost endless billions (10^243) of years.

Proteins are made from long chains called amino-acids. The way those are put together matters enormously. If in the wrong way, they will not sustain life and may be poisons. Professor J.B. Leathes (England) has calculated that the links in the chain of quite a simple protein could be put together in millions of ways (10^48). It is impossible for all these chances to have coincided to build one molecule of protein.

But proteins, as chemicals, are without life. It is only when the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only the infinite mind of God could have foreseen that such a molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed it, and made it live.

Science, in attempt to calculate the age of the whole universe, has placed the figure at 50 billion years. Even such a prolonged duration is too short for the necessary proteinous molecule to have come into existence in a random fashion. When one applies the laws of chance to the probability of an event occurring in nature, such as the formation of a single protein molecule from the elements, even if we allow three billion years for the age of the Earth or more, there isn't enough time for the event to occur.

There are several ways in which the age of the Earth may be calculated from the point in time which at which it solidified. The best of all these methods is based on the physical changes in radioactive elements. Because of the steady emission or decay of their electric particles, they are gradually transformed into radio-inactive elements, the transformation of uranium into lead being of special interest to us. It has been established that this rate of transformation remains constant irrespective of extremely high temperatures or intense pressures. In this way we can calculate for how long the process of uranium disintegration has been at work beneath any given rock by examining the lead formed from it. And since uranium has existed beneath the layers of rock on the Earth's surface right from the time of its solidification, we can calculate from its disintegration rate the exact point in time the rock solidified.

In his book, Human Destiny, Le Comte Du nuoy has made an excellent, detailed analysis of this problem:

It is impossible because of the tremendous complexity of the question to lay down the basis for a calculation which would enable one to establish the probability of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth.

The volume of the substance necessary for such a probability to take place is beyond all imagination. It would that of a sphere with a radius so great that light would take 10^82 years to cover this distance. The volume is incomparably greater than that of the whole universe including the farthest galaxies, whose light takes only 2x10^6 (two million) years to reach us. In brief, we would have to imagine a volume more than one sextillion, sextillion, sextillion times greater than the Einsteinian universe.

The probability for a single molecule of high dissymmetry to be formed by the action of chance and normal thermic agitation remains practically nill. Indeed, if we suppose 500 trillion shakings per second (5x10^14), which corresponds to the order of magnitude of light frequency (wave lengths comprised between 0.4 and 0.8 microns), we find that the time needed to form, on an average, one such molecule (degree of dissymmetry 0.9) in a material volume equal to that of our terrestrial globe (Earth) is about 10^243 billions of years (1 followed by 243 zeros)

But we must not forget that the Earth has only existed for two billion years and that life appeared about one billion years ago, as soon as the Earth had cooled.

Life itself is not even in question but merely one of the substances which constitute living beings. Now, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. We would need much greater figures to "explain" the appearance of a series of similar molecules, the improbability increasing considerably, as we have seen for each new molecule (compound probability), and for each series of identical throws.

If the probability of appearance of a living cell could be expressed mathematically the previous figures would seem negligible. The problem was deliberately simplified in order to increase the probabilities.

Events which, even when we admit very numerous experiments, reactions or shakings per second, need an almost-infinitely longer time than the estimated duration of the Earth in order to have one chance, on an average to manifest themselves can, it would seem, be considered as impossible in the human sense.

It is totally impossible to account scientifically for all phenomena pertaining to life, its development and progressive evolution, and that, unless the foundations of modern science are overthrown, they are unexplainable.

We are faced by a hiatus in our knowledge. There is a gap between living and non-living matter which we have not been able to bridge.

The laws of chance cannot take into account or explain the fact that the properties of a cell are born out of the coordination of complexity and not out of the chaotic complexity of a mixture of gases. This transmissible, hereditary, continuous coordination entirely escapes our laws of chance.

Rare fluctuations do not explain qualitative facts; they only enable us to conceive that they are not impossible qualitatively.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

It would be impossible for chance to produce enough beneficial mutations—and just the right ones—to accomplish anything worthwhile.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10^50. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000."
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^50 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

I love his real world quote: "It's not beneath me, I'm just a regular guy."
*Promote because more guys like him need attention in this world.

The fact that we live in an epoch where a traditionally nomadic peoples recently enthroned by nature of the resources beneath their feet have the leisure to outfit their shorts with locking differentials and perform stunts on empty highways in the desert is testament enough to this being an excellent example of the *eia (evolution in action) of the entire human race.

You don't have to open the video on YouTube to access these links, you can just click the button that looks like a speech bubble right beneath the video (next to the quality adjustment button).

I just enable them as needed. When watching videos on YouTube, I mostly disable them anyway, because they're often misused, or spammy, and distract from the video.