@bareboards2
pure and utter sophistry.

and i resent the fact that you slyly attempt to imply that i will just sit back and remain silent to injustice.

when i feel quite confident my records on this site prove the exact opposite.i have vociferously and aggressively taken on those who would bully,berate and belittle anyone who would voice their opinion.

i believe i have come to YOUR defense on more than one occasion.

what i found disturbing in your comment and maybe i should clarify is this "As Homeland Security says, if you see something, say something."

this is LITERALLY what was posted on almost every open venue in east germany.

and for you to tacitly excuse this statement by dismissively stating that "the stasi operated in secret".as somehow being evidence of your own righteousness belies an ignorance of just how oppressive and fearful those people were living in those conditions.

so you are morally superior because you openly called to out,and i quote "benevolent dictator with a light touch",and did not do so in private?
THIS is your justification?
THIS is the evidence you present to me to...what? exactly?

if you truly feel that you have somehow struck a blow for justice and taken a stand for moral integrity,then i submit that you have no clue what free speech really entales,nor do you understand the implications when we,as a community,start calling in the big daddy in the sky every time someone writes an offensive potty/racist or bigoted word.

and just LOOK how you consumed @gorillaman 's comment.
you made no reference to his salient point,but rather focused on ONE thing:nigger prince.

now was this appropriate?
taken singularly i would have to agree with you.
no..it is not appropriate.

but when we take our understandings of @gorillaman,who has been a contributing sifter for over 10 years,and consider his humor..which is dark and incredibly dry (like sahara dry),then with this context added to the mix,we can conclude that he was probably making a joke...you are certainly within your rights to find that joke in poor taste,and with this community,you are also within your rights (and even encouraged) to take @gorillaman to task for his poor taste.

but instead you called for big daddy in the sky to bring the hammer of justice down,and punish this dirt potty mouthed racist.his crime?
racist verbiage.

no consideration of who was writing it.
no consideration of his history on this site,which you openly admitted is a community.
you just..focused..on..the..word.

and then you preen like a peacock thinking somehow you have struck a blow of righteousness?

please sister.....you accomplished nothing except to put dag in an awkward position,and came across as a self righteous moralizer.

when you simply could have done what other sifters here actually DID.
you downvote his comment.
and if you felt so inclined,and it appears you ARE so inclined,directly call @gorillaman out for his poor choice of verbiage.

look BB,
i actually find you to be a sweetheart,with a huuuuge propensity for empathy and compassion,but every time i engage with you my sphincter tightens up like it is preparing for a colonoscopy.there is this ever-present apprehension that my words will not be taken with humanity that they are written,or the open honesty i am trying to convey.

i am sure that if we were actually sitting in a cafe,sipping that delicious coffee you guys are so proud of, i would not experience this anxiety when engaging with you,but it seems EVERY time i disagree with something you post,or an opinion i may take issue with,i offend you in some manner.

you ..and i am sure this is not done on purpose..make it incredibly difficult to disagree with something you post,because i always feel i have hurt your feelings somehow.

real or imagined...i am just being honest here.i always approach any interaction with you as if i am walking on eggshells,underlined with landmines.

i am simply disagreeing with you here.
calling for a ban on gorillaman because of a joke made in poor taste,while simultaneously disregarding his contributions to this site,and taking his personality into consideration,is simply an over-zealous reaction and in no way deserves the attention of dag.

because if gorillaman deserves to be banned for an offensive phrase,than i should be banned as well.

free speech is just that...free.
of course we are free to ridicule that speech.
yaaay free speech!

He's walking on the eggshells of perception speaking on race, thought he stuttered through an explanation well..

What he mentioned about the Brits schooling the freed slaves in Jamaica? This would explain perhaps the reason reggae is superior to rap and hip-hop in so many ways? Much more political, insightful, hopeful and tuneful. Oh, and kinder, gentler rage...

>> ^jqpublick:

Eggshells are permeable to admit air; the egg will die of oxygen starvation quite quickly. If that's any help.
>> ^lucky760:
>> ^Fletch:
>> ^lucky760:
I imagine that's the same as it'd look in space.
Triggers an eerie hypothetical in my mind. If you just dropped eggs into the ocean (somewhere warm enough), when the baby chick started to peck its way out of the shell it'd drown itself. Poor thing.

Knife is a ScubaPro White Tip (if anyone cares).
[...crickets...]

@lucky760
Chick incubation requires about 100°F, so I doubt anywhere is warm enough. I was a Navy snipe, and the highest injection temperatures I ever saw for our main condenser was about 86°F. However, if you just wait a few more years...

True, but 1) I did say it was a hypothetical (focused around what would happen to the chick more than if it could actually hatch), and 2) temperatures reach well into hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit near hydrothermal vents.
That's hot enough for the spawning and evolution of strange new life forms that will literally never see the light of day. Just don't let the egg get too close or it'll boil.



Quite right! Totally valid point that resolves my hypothetical horror show, so it's a big help.

Eggshells are permeable to admit air; the egg will die of oxygen starvation quite quickly. If that's any help.
>> ^lucky760:

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^lucky760:
I imagine that's the same as it'd look in space.
Triggers an eerie hypothetical in my mind. If you just dropped eggs into the ocean (somewhere warm enough), when the baby chick started to peck its way out of the shell it'd drown itself. Poor thing.

Knife is a ScubaPro White Tip (if anyone cares).
[...crickets...]

@lucky760
Chick incubation requires about 100°F, so I doubt anywhere is warm enough. I was a Navy snipe, and the highest injection temperatures I ever saw for our main condenser was about 86°F. However, if you just wait a few more years...

True, but 1) I did say it was a hypothetical (focused around what would happen to the chick more than if it could actually hatch), and 2) temperatures reach well into hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit near hydrothermal vents.
That's hot enough for the spawning and evolution of strange new life forms that will literally never see the light of day. Just don't let the egg get too close or it'll boil.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
The question is answered, it's just not what you want to hear. You are insisting that he explain how the universe sprang forth from a state that he never asserts as having existed.

It would be like me saying I originated from a fertilized egg and summarizing the human gestation process and then you saying, "Eggs have shells and yolks and come out of chickens! Where did the chicken come from and why don't we ever see eggshells during birth?

Also, a creator is not compatible with your definition of nothing, either. If absolute, immaterial, spaceless, timeless nothingness was the precursor, then there would be no God to create a universe.


Directing you to a general reply to this, here:

http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss-Something-from-Nothing?loadcomm=1#comment-1443305

I agree that if absolute nothingness was the precursor, there would be no God to create the Universe. That is why I am saying that God is eternal, and has always been around to create the Universe.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So, again, the question is not answered. In his book, some chapters of his book are: "Nothing is something" and "Nothing is unstable". He has redefined nothing as empty space or a quantum vaccum, and when pressed, he offers up a multiverse, but fails to explain where to multiverse came from. Nothing is not something, it is not unstable, it is not empty space, it is not a quantum vacuum, and it is not a multiverse. Nothing is nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. It has no states, no properties, no existence.

The question is answered, it's just not what you want to hear. You are insisting that he explain how the universe sprang forth from a state that he never asserts as having existed.

It would be like me saying I originated from a fertilized egg and summarizing the human gestation process and then you saying, "Eggs have shells and yolks and come out of chickens! Where did the chicken come from and why don't we ever see eggshells during birth?"

Also, a creator is not compatible with your definition of nothing, either. If absolute, immaterial, spaceless, timeless nothingness was the precursor, then there would be no God to create a universe.

Then don't do it. Simple.

Why needlessly suffer? If your heart is in the right place that is all that matters. People will always read what they want too into your actions and words. Happens to everyone. And you may not want to hear this, but it is true that the negative stigmas are put less on you in America because you are a white male.

But don't blame all black people for your self-imposed penance and the bitterness it may bring you. No black commission orders white people to tiptoe on eggshells.>> ^Porksandwich:

I mean it sounds horrible saying it like is in this video......
But I have been in some situations doing work in predominately black neighborhoods where some of the people went out of their way to cause us problems, and a black guy working for us got up in a couple of their faces about it.
I have also had similar situations with some white guys who create problems for people when they think they should have been the ones who got the job or should be working.
Now, Im a white guy. And when you have a black guy act like this and see another black guy whose more attuned to your circumstances because he works with you being on your side...it makes it seem more racially fueled than if you have ignorant white people doing it....they are just white trash and you can write them off as white trash.......because you're white and you can do that.
But in the case of black people acting that way, you can't be sure if they just hate you because you're white or hate you because they think they deserve what you have like white trash does.
So........I can see the point of some of the comments the guy made because as a white guy you can't be sure how your actions will be seen...as long as the question of skin color or ethnicity is ever questioned. And it's questioned all the time in the US, so you have to be aware of that because some people will make issue of it if you just say you are sick and tired of ignorant bastards treating you this way because it makes you sound like a huge racist if you say it in reference to black people.....because it's always measured like that. Where as if a black guy said it in your defense, it'd be OK or at least less scrutinized.
And here's a fun thing to keep in mind. I have an US born Indian friend, I met him in college. The people who hated him most in college for seemingly no reason? Indians not born in the US, they hated his ass with a passion. I noticed it, thought maybe it was due to language they never spoke with him as some of them sucked at English and needed the others to help them figure stuff out. I asked and he said they hate him because he wasn't born in India. And you know who he came to hate the most? Non-US born Indians, because they treated him like shit for something he had no control over.
I mean if people just hate you because you are <whatever>, there ain't a whole lot you can do but ignore them. And if they keep it up and start to affect your life, you can only hate them back. Anything else is pretty much hoping the law will allow you some protection, because everything else is involves some horrible violence or death to solve it. You can't reason with irrational hatred.
I don't know the answer, but I can say that having to constantly wonder about this shit is stressing as hell but mentioning it to people draws this kind of "awww poor white male" crybaby attitude toward it. It slowly kills off your empathy/sympathy for others who think your life is awesome simply because you're male and white. I surely don't agree with this guy's view, but I have to wonder if in 40 years I'll be so tired of having to constantly weigh every comment or action I make against some invisible scale of political correctness will just wear me out and make me bitter.

Well - the "law" says the cyclist can take the whole lane. But COMMON SENSE says that the cyclist should behave as if he's a spun-glass ornament sharing the same space as an avalanche of steel girders. As a regular cyclist myself, I get over to the right about 3 feet from the curb and I STAY there no matter what the laws say I can do. When you're the equivalent of an eggshell on a bowling alley, you don't go plunking yourself right in front of the pins.

>> ^truth-is-the-nemesis:

“Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” finally has an answer: The chicken.
The research comes from British scientists out of Sheffield and Warwick universities. It all boils down to one protein—ovocledidin-17 (OC-17)—that is only found inside a chicken's ovaries, and is essential for eggshell formation.
Although the protein has been studied as part of eggshell development before, researchers used a super computer to ‘zoom-in' while a shell was forming, and found that it actually serves as a catalyst.

Source: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/07/14/the-chicken-and-the-egg
-ancient-mystery-solved/



Ah. but was that protein present before the chicken was considered a chicken? I'd wager that actually, you know, eggs existed prior to chickens.

I do very much hope this is a parody.

“Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” finally has an answer: The chicken.

The research comes from British scientists out of Sheffield and Warwick universities. It all boils down to one protein—ovocledidin-17 (OC-17)—that is only found inside a chicken's ovaries, and is essential for eggshell formation.

Although the protein has been studied as part of eggshell development before, researchers used a super computer to ‘zoom-in' while a shell was forming, and found that it actually serves as a catalyst.



Source: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/07/14/the-chicken-and-the-egg-ancient-mystery-solved/

>> ^blankfist:

Two comments in and you're back to your old games again. Where did I say "all" immigrants will be poor or "all" immigrants will refuse to pay taxes? Notice I mentioned US citizens as well. But you probably missed that while only listening to what you wanted to hear.

Seriously blankie, what's with the hostility? Forgive me for just this once talking like a normal person and saying "all" when I should've said "disproportionately."

I was mostly just asking about whether you thought immigrants were a special class of people with different demographics than the indigenous population, because I don't see the how you link immigration to the solvency of a social safety net unless you presuppose that immigrants are either going to be disproportionately poor, or disproportionately likely to commit some form of fraud (tax or entitlement).

>> ^blankfist:
It's not that "all" immigrants are poor, it's that if you were poor and you realized you could go somewhere and have access to things you'd not normally have access to, then what're the odds of you exploiting that?
It's a numbers game. The more you allow for exploits in a system, the more it'll be exploited. Etc. Same goes with citizenry and citizenry birth. But the real difference, I believe, is that if you are stable in your home country, you're probably less likely to migrate somewhere just for the entitlements. The opposite is probably more likely however if you're not stable. Is that not a reasonable assumption?


So here's the part where I walk on eggshells and gently point out that you do seem to be saying that immigrants will be disproportionately likely to be poor or commit fraud.

You're also tossing in that you think native born citizens will be that way too. If that's the case, then we're back to "so what does immigration have to do with anything?"


Let's say we turned America into a Finnish-style welfare state -- taxes are high, infrastructure is modern and in good repair, our public schools are the best in the world, our health care system is both cost effective and provides quality care, unemployment is low, our budget is in surplus, our unemployment benefits are generous (and have no time limit), and we have a growing private sector with a heavy technology focus.

If we then threw the gates wide open on immigration, I think you're right; most of the people coming here would be poorer than the average American, and at least in the short run, it'd be bad for the government's net fiscal situation -- more people on welfare, without a completely offsetting tax revenue increase.

But over the long run, I think the situation would reverse. The immigrants and their children would get a free, quality education. They'd get first class health care. They'd have access to public transportation, and a healthy jobs market. For the most part, they'd "exploit" the advantages offered to them to bootstrap themselves into a more productive, wealthier, tax-paying lifestyle. In the long run, the state's investments in the human capital of those immigrants would pay dividends that go beyond mere economic growth, it'd also diversify and enrich the culture of their nation, and bring new ideas and different ways of thinking into the shared project of their society.

Which is to say, I don't think immigration poses a fiscal problem for welfare states.

Bigotry on the other hand, that poses a problem for left-wing policies of all kinds. I don't really think that's a strike against the policies of the left though.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
It sucks because left to his own devices, I like him too. He just seems to have such an angry filter lately. If you ever catch an old old video (3 yrs +) check to see if there's any choggie comments in there. The difference is night and day.

It went from coherent and caring, to deep and encrypted, to encrypted and angry over the course of his stay here.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
@enoch

There's no way choggie could come back and be himself so even if he were to come back...the eggshells that'd need to be traversed in order for him to give his opinion, wouldn't allow choggie to be choggie.

i know man.
you are spot on.
i am more like choggie than most people suspect.
i am just the kinder/gentler version.
i love you man (not in the gay way)

agreed.
frustration i would assume but what do i know?

It sucks because left to his own devices, I like him too. He just seems to have such an angry filter lately. If you ever catch an old old video (3 yrs +) check to see if there's any choggie comments in there. The difference is night and day.

It went from coherent and caring, to deep and encrypted, to encrypted and angry over the course of his stay here.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
@enoch

There's no way choggie could come back and be himself so even if he were to come back...the eggshells that'd need to be traversed in order for him to give his opinion, wouldn't allow choggie to be choggie.

i know man.
you are spot on.
i am more like choggie than most people suspect.
i am just the kinder/gentler version.
i love you man (not in the gay way)

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
@enoch

There's no way choggie could come back and be himself so even if he were to come back...the eggshells that'd need to be traversed in order for him to give his opinion, wouldn't allow choggie to be choggie.

i know man.
you are spot on.
i am more like choggie than most people suspect.
i am just the kinder/gentler version.
i love you man (not in the gay way)