I'm guessing that's with no opposition he only got 62% of the black (republican) vote and 78% of the Guatemalan (republican) vote....which I'm also pretty damn sure you or they just made up because the simply don't do exit polls for Guatemalan/Americans.

Um....yeah...Democrats didn't win the next 10 elections after 68 huh? I guess Carter wasn't elected in 76 then. Also, you know that 68 wasn't 60 years ago, right....so your " The liberals collapse every 60 years." hypothesis means they have 12 years to go before collapsing....unlike the right which has already collapsed, nominating one of the rich assholes that's proud to exclaim that he buys politicians to rig the law for his own benefit because they hate that politicians are bought by rich assholes that rig the system for their own benefit, and also the guy who LITTERALLY wrote the book on how to succeed by lying because they want someone honest?!? Yeah, brilliant strategy.

It will be hilarious to see the contest between two candidates that are tied for the least trusted, most hated candidates ever, both of which will be under indictment come election time, Trump for massive theft by frauds, Clinton for inappropriate emails (and for being a Clinton, let's be real). Hilarious, but disastrous for us, no one wins with that contest.

Ok, but in the future there will be a race advanced enough to create a simulation of a race advanced enough to create a simulation... and so on. Where does it end, and isn't that an appeal to god considering its unprovable and precludes any experiment to disprove it? No matter how you go about it, someone will say "That's what the simulation wants you to think!"

Basically we're back to the god problem - only this time our future computers are advanced enough to be indistinguishable from god in our own reality. We don't discuss god in science because it's the beginning and end of every hypothesis.

I'll agree with everyone on TYT. I like the message, but the delivery needs work.

Captain Disillusion. I enjoy debunking, but the persona and gimmick makes it hard to watch most of the time.

Thunderf00t. I enjoyed him for awhile, especially his Creationist debunking era, but then something happened and I just can't do his videos most of the time. Partly it was his stance on elevator gate, which he just pushed and pushed endlessly, but he seemed to just go off after that whole incident. I don't mind the opinion, I disagree, but he just wouldn't let it go... and never got back to what he originally was doing.

Oh and yeah, Angry Videogame Nerd I agree with. Way too much fluff...

Markplier. My kids love him, so my suggestion box is full of him for a few days after every other weekend. I love Twitch and stuff like that, but I don't find his personality at all enjoyable. He's a Pew De Pie wannabe and I can't stand Pew either.

Earthling Cinema... no. Just no. Another annoying personality, I just don't get the appeal.

Speaking of cinema related ones, Cinema Sins. They give 50 or 60, and really only a third or so actually count, even on movies I hated. I appreciate critique but I don't know, I normally can't watch a full episode.

I'll agree with others about mean spirited pranks. Truth distorters, especially when it is for financial, political or religious gain, which I guess is most of those types.

Joshua Feuerstein is a perfect example of the above.

People doing videos in cars, even if parked... there are exceptions to that, like the guy who does carpool karaoke, but most others...

Guy on the street type videos. It's been a format around for too long. How many people did you have to edit out to get a few idiots? Occasionally they'll show one person who knows among 8 others.

When otherwise smart science channels like SciShow and the like use the word "theory" in the common sense of the term and not the scientific use. It continues to distort the public image of the word. They come to a science channel, see it used where they should be using hypothesis. If they want to keep it simple and use guess or ideas. Just don't use the word theory until it's a more accepted theory. This way people don't keep saying "it's just a theory" on actual facts like the big bang, evolution, human accelerated climate change, etc.

A good hypothesis.

At the end of the day it's going to be a myriad of factors that affects them and firearm laws are just one piece in the puzzle.

There have been many things in history that have been thought to have been impossible. Neil deGrasse Tyson's presentation on "The God of the Gaps" is a great video addressing that line of thought.

However, that point may not even matter. My hypothesis is that our neurons don't operate all the way down to a sub-atomic or electron-spin level of granularity. There's plenty of complexity at the molecular and cellular scales. We're likely chemical and physical reactions like Newtboy says.

To be fair I can't test the hypothesis that contrails are H2O either.

And then for headaches = wifi etc I think some people don't understand why their experience isn't sufficient evidence, or rather what constitutes an experiment.

The red queen hypothesis is pretty damn Machiavellian.

Politicians are so fucking scared of the losing the religiot vote it makes me sick. Look at them, cravenly pandering to turd-for-brain creationists, each candidate terrified that if they don't say they're a Christian 20,000 times between now and election day they haven't got a chance. Such cowardice. Why do such bad ideas as creationism get to figure on the world stage? Why should the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world even consider the opinions of people who believe in cherubim and seraphim and gods and planets appearing out of the void by magic? Ignorance of the facts is one thing, but anyone who seriously believes that the world is 6000 years old and that every living thing was poofed into existence by a kind of wizard, after being exposed and eductated by the evidence, should be mocked off the podium.

Hypothesis: each and every candidate, educated as they are, fucking knows that evolution is true. So they lie to keep the votes of dumbfuck creationists. The stand at rallies and make speeches about their anti-evolution stance, lying over and over again but they fucking know. And you know what? The people who genuinely believe in creationism should be insulted that their candidates pay mere lip-service to their religious beliefs. The public ends up electing a liar and they either don't know because they're too weak-minded to work out they're being lied to (they are creationists, after all) or they don't care because it's the right lie; it's the lie they want to hear, and yeah, the guy's lying, but there's plenty of cognitive dissonance to go round. It's the lie that you can't get elected without telling.

There's certainly a correlation there. Not sure it can be proven as causal (as there are certainly other factors like availability to fire arms).

But it's a solid hypothesis.

Your video, Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law… Explained!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Me neither, but here's the explanation from above:

Chickens raised wearing artificial tails, and consequently with more posteriorly located centre of mass, showed a more vertical orientation of the femur during standing and increased femoral displacement during locomotion. Our results support the hypothesis that gradual changes in the location of the centre of mass resulted in more crouched hindlimb postures and a shift from hip-driven to knee-driven limb movements through theropod evolution.

Sweet Bastard Zombie Jesus!

You don't think well, and are 100% wrong about both my education and acquaintances, but you, on the other hand, do not seem to have either education or personal acquaintances to draw from on this subject. It seems some militant Feminist (they are not the only brand of Feminist, BTW) left a bad taste in your mouth, so now all feminism, to you, is distasteful. That's like eating a single spoilt sausage and from then on loudly telling people at dinner "meat is all tainted and it all makes you sick...you're just too dumb to know it", and continuing on that vein until they either (from exasperation) either stop eating it in your presence or find a way to ignore you, IMO, because attempting to rationally explain that some improperly handled meat is tainted, but not all, falls on deaf ears.

Dictionaries are where you look up the definitions of words, which is exactly what I did. Because you can't grasp the concept doesn't make it wrong.

Because your mind can't grasp the difference between the name of a movement based loosely on an idea and that idea does not mean there isn't one. Sorry, fail, just like your second paragraph in your last post which included many ANTI-feminist theories along with some overboard militant Feminist theories...I wonder if you can follow that thought since you don't grasp the difference in the words and claim there isn't one.

Equality is not advancement of one group at the expense of the other, it's the discontinuation of that process.

MY dictionary?!? Me thinks you protest too much. What's your issue with the English language (or language in general) that use of one of the main tools of language causes you such consternation and spawns such disrespectful and angry sounding replies? I honestly think you're just angry that I proved your argument's major flaw (that flaw being your inability to distinguish between a loose group's name and an idea...which makes one wonder, do you believe there were roaming gangs of large, dark colored cats protesting and attacking police in the US in the 60's and 70's?), but can't bring yourself to admit your argument had any flaw.

"Cultural fiction of gender"?!? Oh...I didn't realize I was having a discussion with a completely crazy person. If you actually believe gender is a "cultural fiction", there's no point discussing anything with you, because you live in a different reality from the rest of us that actually HAVE a gender, and not just culturally derived gender, and have ancestors that had gender before there was such a thing as "culture". What an insane statement, one that totally missed the point as well.

Spit on me, you'll find yourself in a bad place, and you'll find that many in favor of Women's rights are also in favor of removing ALL involuntary cultural distinctions of gender, a thing that has NOT been done by far, and you wish to stop any advancement towards equality of genders while one side is SO far ahead based solely on their GENDER. (damn, that word again describing a thing that doesn't exist...you must hate that, huh?)

Yes, if you fail to even conceive that, unfairly, there is a gender split in society that 99% of the time favors one gender to the detriment of the other, you by default fall into that opposing force, opposing fairness and equality, and individualism. No question. It's sad to me that you can't see that.

I'll ignore your last 2 paragraphs, I'm not speaking for @bareboards2, she's perfectly capable of speaking for herself, but has intelligently decided that further discussion with you on this subject is pointless...and I see she's likely right, you just want to argue about it, as made clear by your never ending arguments spawning from a simple clarification of what 2 words (spelled the same, but one being a proper name, the other an idea) actually mean...according to THE dictionary, and your insistence that the dictionary is wrong because it doesn't support your position that feminism and Feminism are the same thing. BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!! That's too funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Enjoy exploring that hypothesis further, but without my further input. My points are made, some repeatedly.

First of all, those are two completely different questions. What happens (presumably you mean after death?) doesn't necessarily have anything to do with why we are here.

It could be that nothing happens after death, but there is still some grand purpose to existence. Or it could be that there's an afterlife, but the universe itself is meaningless.

As to what do I really know? The answer is, of course, nothing. No-one can really know anything about what happens outside of our existence and anyone who tells you they do is either lying or delusional.

However we can make an educated guess (and not even a "so called" one, a real one based on centuries learning about the universe we inhabit) Every time we make a new discovery, it has turned out to have a natural explanation. As we learn more, the "god of the gaps" has grown smaller and smaller, to the point where we know that even if there is some mystical force underlying the universe, it has no measurable effect on it.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Physicist-Sean-Carroll-refutes-supernatural-beliefs

If our consciousness really does continue after our physical bodies die, there has to be a mechanism for it, and there is zero evidence of any such mechanism.

It could be that we simply lack the tools or the understanding to detect this, but there isn't even anything leading us to ask the question (e.g. an unexplained phenomena that would prompt us to investigate a hypothesis that might lead to a theory).

As to why we are here? From a scientific point of view, there's no evidence to suggest there is a reason to anything. The universe just is. From a philosophical point of view, I've always liked Carl Sagan's idea that "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself".

TL;DR We really know nothing, but it's pretty unlikely that anything happens after death or that there is a reason we are here.

You seem to be offended that Ulysses spoke up that he didn't find her funny, and have taken it to the nth degree (really, analogies re: anal fisting?), but a big part of Amy's speech/performance was the idea that she has always been a bit unique and saw no reason to change herself to conform to others ideas of what she should do or be.

So why do people who do not find her funny suddenly owe you an explanation as to why? Why is it even a point of analysis? If the hypothesis is that if you're not a feminist, you're more likely to not find her funny, is it not also possible that feminists are more likely to find her funny because they subjectively want her to be funny? Aka confirmation bias.

Amy doesn't seem to mind that some people don't find her funny, so I don't see why it seems to irk you so much.

ps. Tina Fey is hilarious in ways Schumer has never managed imo, as is Amy Poehler. Similarly, I find Eddie Murphy funny but never really got much of a laugh out of Richard Prior or Bill Cosby. That doesn't say anything about my values or attitudes towards women and black men, it's just a subjective opinion based on what they say or do.