"I referred to the modern nazi who supports them"

Fair enough.

"It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. "
Agreed. That desire should not be considered an acceptable point of view. But there's a big gap between saying expressing a desire and carrying out an action.

"This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on."
No, I don't believe that. Hitler was in power, he had an army and he was already committing genocide. At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities.

But yes, ultimately, if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide, wouldn't that have been a better solution?

There are absolutely times when violence is the best course of action, but it ALWAYS represents a failure to resolve differences.

"I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok."

I'm certainly not going to shed any tears over it and being completely honest, part of me relishes it. But intellectually, I know it's a) not a sustainable solution and b) it's a juvenile response.

"It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies"

Completely agree. Put enough humans together and they form tribes and ascribe bad things to "the others". What saves us is the ability to learn from past mistakes as a civilisation, and even then we're REALLY slow learners.

But we have made progress.
Going from right to left, I would bet that even most Nazis think women should be able to vote; the vast majority of conservatives view racism as abhorrent (at least, consciously) and "Middle America" has mostly come around to gay rights.

"Defeated" might be the wrong word here. I want Nazism to become as laughable a philosophy as flat earthers. Espousing it should be met with the same response as someone who claims thunder is the gods playing football.

" TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me"

Don't apologise... it's an interesting discussion.

There's a pretty big gap between dumb as a sack of hammers nonsense like Big Bang and 2.5 men (both created by the same guy, I think) and something like It's Always Sunny or Breaking Bad.

I'm not saying you're wrong to dislike Breading Bad or It's Always Sunny (I thought BB was great, but It's Always Sunny never really grabbed me), just that they're not really in the same category.

It's just kinda like saying "I don't really like pop music. I don't like Lady Gaga; she's like Katy Perry or Pink Floyd. And I tried to get into Led Zeppelin, but the first album sucked".

I'm confused... was that not a footpath? And if not, why did the bus leave a big gap?

I often find myself thinking that airplanes should have some kind of foghorn to alert road traffic if they're coming down for an emergency landing because there's no way for cars to know the plane is coming down until it's passed you. It's easy if there's a big gap in traffic as seen above, but on my freeways, which are near an airport, that's very rare. (I actually think about this every single day every time a small plane is flying nearby. I keep thinking "Today will be the day a the plane comes down for a landing.")

If that were the US, the cars behind the plane would be honking, flashing their high beams, and swerving around them while giving the finger.

I agree with Larry Elder that a 60% illegitimacy rate in the Black community is a far more serious problem than racism. (Right now, Whites' illegitimacy rate is 40%, also appalling).

http://videosift.com/video/Larry-Elder-on-the-Tavis-Smiley-Show

Elder has stats on the above video about Black crime. The Department of Justice also documents the racial makeup of crime.

I don't like it any more than you do, but facts is facts.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Are you displeased by the facts? I don't blame you.
Bill Cosby said as much.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Compared to other racial groups, a disproportionately high percentage of melanin-enhanced Americans engage in criminal behavior, perhaps due to a failed cultural model that rejects the values of education, marriage and respect for just laws.

That's racist.


Incidentally, there's a pretty big gap between what you said, and what Bill Cosby said.
What Bill Cosby said was basically "you need to do more as parents if you don't want your kids going to jail, it's not just white bigotry at fault".
What you said was promoting a stereotype about "melanin-enhancing Americans", and using Bill Cosby's comments as some sort of justification.
It's true that Cosby's comments imply that there's some truth to the stereotype, but the problem with stereotypes has nothing to do with whether they're true or not, it's about their prevalence causing people to prejudge others on the basis of a stereotype, even though none of them are true for 100% of the group they describe.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Are you displeased by the facts? I don't blame you.
Bill Cosby said as much.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Compared to other racial groups, a disproportionately high percentage of melanin-enhanced Americans engage in criminal behavior, perhaps due to a failed cultural model that rejects the values of education, marriage and respect for just laws.

That's racist.



Incidentally, there's a pretty big gap between what you said, and what Bill Cosby said.

What Bill Cosby said was basically "you need to do more as parents if you don't want your kids going to jail, it's not just white bigotry at fault".

What you said was promoting a stereotype about "melanin-enhancing Americans", and using Bill Cosby's comments as some sort of justification.

It's true that Cosby's comments imply that there's some truth to the stereotype, but the problem with stereotypes has nothing to do with whether they're true or not, it's about their prevalence causing people to prejudge others on the basis of a stereotype, even though none of them are true for 100% of the group they describe.

@TheGenk @Skeeve @Boise_Lib @gwiz665 @packo @IronDwarf @MaxWilder @westy @BicycleRepairMan @shuac @KnivesOut

Evolution is pseudo-science. It exists in the realm of imagination, and cannot be scientifically verified. At best, evolution science is forensic science, and what has been found not only does not support it, but entirely rules it out. I don't think any of you realize how weak the case for evolution really is. None of them quotes, as far as I know, are from creation scientists btw

No true transitional forms in the fossil record:

Darwins theory proposed that slow change over a great deal of time could evolve one kind of thing into another. Such as reptiles to birds. The theory proposed that we should see in the fossil records billions of these transitional forms, yet we have found none. When the theory was first proposed, darwinists pleaded poverty in the fossil record, claiming the missing links were yet to be found. It was then claimed that the links were missing because conditions conspired against fossilizing them, or that they had been eroded or destroyed in subsequent fossilization.

120 years have gone by since then. We have uncovered an extremely rich fossil record with billions of fossils, a record which has completely failed to produce the expected transitions. It has become obvious that there was no process that could have miraculously destroyed the transitionals yet left the terminal forms intact.

The next theory proposed was "hopeful monster" theory, which states that evolution occurs in large leaps instead of small ones. Some even suggested that a bird could have hatched from a reptile egg. This is against all genetic evidence, and has never been observed.

The complete lack of transitional forms is not even the worst problem for evolution, considering the big gaps between the higher categories, and the systemic absence of transitional forms between families classes orders and phyla.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (and a hardcore evolutionist), in a letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979 admitting no transitional forms exist.

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

-Charles Darwin

"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

-Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University

Fossil record disputes evolutionary theory:

According to evolutionary theory we should see an evolutionary tree of organisms starting from the least complex to the most complex. Instead, what we do see in the fossil record is the very sudden appearance of fully-formed and fully-functional complex life.

If you examine the fossil record, you see all kinds of complex life suddenly jumping into existence during a period that evolutionists refer to as the "Cambrian explosion".

None of the fossilized life forms found in the "Cambrian period" have any predecessors prior to that time. In essence, the "Cambrian period" represents a "sudden explosion of life" in geological terms.

Evolutionists try to disprove this by stretching it over a period of 50 million years, but they have no transitional fossils to prove that theory before or during.

"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"

-Paleontologist George Gaylord

What disturbs evolutionists greatly is that complex life just appears in the fossil record out of nowhere, fully functional and formed.

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

-Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki (an evolutionist)

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative."

-Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230

Evolution can't explain the addition of information that turns one kind into another kind

There is no example recorded of functional information being added to any creature, ever.

"The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)."

Species just don't change. Kind only produces kind:

"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it."

Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University

Not enough bones:

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.

Try to debunk this if you can
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=tYLHxcqJmoM&feature=PlayList&p=C805D4953D9DEC66&index=0&playnext=1

More fun facts:

There are no records of any human civilization past 4000 BC

"The research in the development of the [radiocarbon] dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historic and prehistoric epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisors informed us that history extended back only for 5,000 years . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, the earliest historical date that has been established with any degree of certainty is about the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt."—*Willard Libby, Science, March 3, 1961, p. 624.

Prior to a certain point several thousand years ago, there was no trace of man having ever existed. After that point, civilization, writing, language, agriculture, domestication, and all the rest—suddenly exploded into intense activity!

"No more surprising fact has been discovered, by recent excavation, than the suddenness with which civilization appeared in the world. This discovery is the very opposite to that anticipated. It was expected that the more ancient the period, the more primitive would excavators find it to be, until traces of civilization ceased altogether and aboriginal man appeared. Neither in Babylonia nor Egypt, the lands of the oldest known habitations of man, has this been the case."—P.J. Wiseman, New Discoveries, in Babylonia, about Genesis (1949 ), p. 28.

Oldest people/language recorded in c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia.

The various radiodating techniques could be so inaccurate that mankind has only been on earth a few thousand years.

"Dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude . . Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."—*Robert Gannon, "How Old Is It?" Popular Science, November 1979, p. 81.

Moonwalk disproves age of moon:

The moon is constantly being bombarded by cosmic dust particles. Scientists were able to measure the rate at which these particles would accumulate. Using their estimates according to their understanding that the age of the Earth was billions of years, their most conservative estimate predicted a dust layer 54 feet deep. This is why the lander had those huge balloon tires, to be prepared to land on a sea of dust. Neil Armstrong, after saying those famous words, uttered two more which disproved the age of the moon entirely "its solid!". Far from being 54 feet, they found the dust was 3/4 of an inch.

Evolution is a fairy tale that modern civilization has bought, hook line and sinker. Humorously, atheists accuse creationists of beiieving in myths without any evidence..when they place their entire faith in an unproven theory even evolutionists know is fatally flawed and invalid. Evolution is a meta physical belief that requires faith. Period.

Evolution is false, science affirms a divine Creator
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Tracts/big_daddy.htm

Though most of this is undisputable, I'm just getting started..

This is a very clear and concise description of Austrian economics (aka libertarianism wearing a t-shirt labeled "economics"). It should be titled as such, and not as a primer on "how money works".

It seems to me that there is a big gap between the assertion that money must be a store of value, and that the value stored has to permanently be fixed.

Even if we were on the gold standard, what I could buy with a dollar would still vary wildly over time as other aspects of the economy changed.

The Austrian theory of boom/bust is pretty silly. It essentially says that fundamentally markets can't function properly -- if interest rates are ever "low", the market will always make stupid bets with the cheap money (boom), and then lose their shirts and make everyone raise rates (bust). It then declares that somehow this is government's fault for ever trying to use interest rates to dampen booms and busts, and if we just trust in the market, everything will be free of booms and busts (even though history says otherwise).

It's better to focus on things like interest rates and liquidity problems with regard to monetary policy, rather than trying to maintain currency value to an arbitrary standard.

>> ^dag:
Necrophilia is definitely a big gap in our channel lineup.


I'm not sure we really need this; in fact, it would seem to already exist as Downunder + Sexuality

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

Welcome to the big blingy EDD - looking forward to your channel. Necrophilia is definitely a big gap in our channel lineup.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bike, trials, big gaps, bicycle' to 'bike, trials, big gaps, bicycle, stunts, neil tunnicliffe' - edited by kulpims

Was it all filmed into several 4-5 minute episodes? Because this seems like Episode 2, whereas we've only seen one part of Episode 1, which is why there seems like a big gap between the first episode and this one. Typical Microsoft to screw up on user understanding though.

But I think this one works if the goal is give Microsoft a lighter image. I like how they don't attack Apple as well.

Yeah yeah he's right about some things, but supporting Nader is a great way to get John "1000000 years in Iraq" McCain elected. There's a big difference between McCain and Obama.

So you think the differences between D and R are small? Look at the supreme court nominees.
Clinton appointed Breyer and Ginsburg
Bush Jr. appointed Roberts and Alito
Reagan appointed Scalia and Kennedy
Bush Sr. appointed Thomas and Souter
Ford appointed Stephens (but Ford was more liberal than subsequent republican presidents and Stephens has improved with age)

2 out of 9 justices are Clinton nominees, and both are good.
7 out of 9 are Republican nominees, and that's a mixed bag.

Go and read their decisions. If I had to rank them from best to worst I'd say:
1. Stephens
2. Breyer = Souter
3. Ginsburg
... (big gap)
4. Scalia = Kennedy
5. Roberts
6. Alito
7. Thomas

I'm using a mac with safari - and the last few days the sift has been doing all kinds of weird things. Vidoes not submitting properly, saved videos appearing discarded, odd layout of the pages, big gaps in the queue.