When you're talking about something that clearly skews the stats, like hyper religious people thinking divorce is totally a slap at God, that's not confirmation bias, it's statistics.

It's also evidence that it is a better way of life, but that is something you apparently refuse to consider. That is why I am calling confirmation bias.

Do you feel the same about those who imprison women, force their silence with abuse, and treat them like abused pets because their religion says that's proper? What if they're Christians?

The bible says that husbands should lay down their lives for their wives, like Christ loved the church and died for it.

What say you about those God has chosen to be non believers? According to you, God created them with no purpose besides eternal torture in hell, because according to you they have no alternative since God never revealed himself to them so heaven is barred to them. Pretty fucked up God imo. I prefer Mt (Mot, Mewt, etc). He's older than Yahweh and far more honest and stable.

It's not that God wouldn't reveal Himself to them; a lot of ex-christian atheists simply inherited the faith of their parents, and when they got turned loose in the world, they fell away because they didn't really know God. They need to have their own faith that is wholly theirs. No one can make you or by proxy give your life to Christ. That is a decision each individual person has to come to on their own.

I doubt he has alzheimer's.

No, Trump's problem is simply that he's an asshole. He probably inherited it from his parents. Also, and vitally, he hasn't offset being an asshole by possessing an above-average intelligence.

Re. slavery and sins of fathers

I don't think anybody is suggesting that white folks be held personally responsible for slavery, but you do need to accept that, in the main, whites start life with a headstart. We still profit from that history, and that is to say nothing of the racism that still exists today.

I'm not sure that Schwarzenegger really gained much from his father fighting on the losing side of a war. As far as I am aware he came to America almost penniless and somehow manufactured a career for himself. Like...maybe if his dad had got a load of looted art or something and then Arnie inherited that... idk.

Anyhoo, he's white, so he had that going for him.

The American system is stacked toward the wealthy.

He inherited 200 million in NYC condos in the early '80s. If he'd held on to them, they'd be worth an estimated 12 billion today. If he'd sold and put the money in indexed stocks, he'd be worth 10 billion today. By his own most generous estimate he's worth 8 billion today (and less biased estimates have him out of billionaire status entirely).

Trump filed for bankruptcy four (I think, might have been more) times, each time structuring his debt so the shareholders got screwed and he got away clean.

He's accepted hundreds of millions of dollars worth of sweetheart loans from Russian banks. Every American bank has him blacklisted.

He's screwed contractors, employees, and practically everyone he can for years.

He's stiffed debt collectors for decades.

He's paid no taxes for decades.

In spite of all those benefits, he's still managed to lose approximately 90% of the massive wealth he inherited. Yeah, brilliant person.

BTW, every time I hear about the Dunning Kruger effect, I think of you and all the other Trumpites, Bob. It's worth giving some critical thought, if you can manage it.

Except that he didn't. He took that million, made investments, got a job with daddy, and within 15 years had accrued massive debt.

When his father died he got a massive inheritance. That's where his wealth comes from.

And, as John Oliver pointed out with great humor, Trump has had one failure after another as a businessman. But his name has recognition so it's useful as a brand. So OTHER people put his name on their buildings and such, and then he swaggers around taking credit for it.

You bought the yellow kool-aid, and now you're smiling through it and trying to tell us it doesn't taste like piss.

I lived in EPA in the late 80's, and again in the early 90's. We heard gunfire nightly, but never had a serious problem.
We went to Mountain View from there. We paid $800 for a 2 bedroom apartment for years, then left in 96, ending up in far northern California where we could afford a decent house with 2/3 of an acre in a nice neighborhood.

My advice would be to buy what you can live with and afford, then sell and move out of the city when you retire and buy someplace cheap to live with the proceeds. You'll be way better off with that money still in your pocket rather than someone else's, and have far better options when you retire. Just my opinion, but it's working for me. Real estate has been the best investment I've ever made by far, infinitely better than the stock market has done for me (sadly I invested an inheritance in the stock market in early summer '08, and lost my shirt).

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

Every social program is taken out of people's checks (unless those checks come from investments or inheritance), that's how they work, otherwise they would be called charities.
Yes, people have paid into those programs, some for a long time, but they want to contribute at 1970's rates and collect at 2016 rates, while defunding the programs. You see the problem, right? They were social insurance programs that now everyone wants to have pay out for them....this type of insurance is for those in need when they need it, not for the rich to use to pay every day expenses, it simply doesn't work when used that way.
Speaking of solar, how did the government programs we tried to keep all solar production from going to China work....not so bad. You can find a few failures, but there were far more successes for a net gain.
Again, if everyone takes from the social safety net as if it had been a savings account, it doesn't work. It's for the poor, there really needs to be a means test to collect, or it's doomed to fail.
In my experience, they like to say that, but then they raise goats for tax breaks, not for any product, and grow corn (or don't) for government handouts, and expect free or near free water at government expense, or use government land without paying (stealing from us all), etc. They are not nearly as reliant as they claim...and I come from Texas where we raised cattle and goats for exactly those reasons, not as livestock but as tax dodges, and that was the norm not the exception. Of course, my family would never in a million years have admitted that that was a handout, but it was.

And the argument is hilarious when paired with the accusations that 'others' that get government assistance are "takers" and welfare queens, but not them, they're just taking back what they think they put in (with interest and inflation added) when in reality they put in far less than they think and take far more than they admit.

Yes, Jesus is 1/2 human, but not the half by which our sin nature is passed down. The sin nature is inherited from the father and not the mother.

God is eternal. He is uncreated, having no beginning or end. In other words, He isn't subject to time, time is subject to Him because He created it. It's impossible to really wrap our minds around that, being finite creatures who are subject to time. It should then therefore go without saying that how an eternal being not subject to time deals with time is beyond our understanding.

Whether we are able to fully comprehend it or not, the important issue is that to God, Jesus' sacrificial death was justice for all sin. That is good news for us! That means that we can be forgiven and receive eternal life.

I am also not sure why you are saying the infinite room idea is a fallacy; do you think this is a religious concept? This is a paradox postulated by mathematicians, not theologians:

"Hilbert's paradox is a veridical paradox: it leads to a counter-intuitive result that is provably true. The statements "there is a guest to every room" and "no more guests can be accommodated" are not equivalent when there are infinitely many rooms."

It is a logically valid idea according to mathematicians.

Trump inherited over 200 million in real-estate from daddy in the early '80s.

If he'd sold it and simply put the money in indexed funds, it would be worth about 12 billion today. If he'd held onto it the real-estate would be worth about 15 billion today. At his most generous, Trump estimates his own wealth around 8 billion. Other sources have it much lower (Deutsche Bank estimated it well under a billion about ten years ago).

So, to answer your question, "How does he manage his companies?"

Badly. But when you start with so much even total incompetence takes a while to drain your accounts.

No major bank will lend him money anymore. I've heard that he owes hundreds of millions to Putin cronies, which perfectly explains why he's so Putin friendly. He's probably been told they'll write off some or all of his debt if he carries their water for four years as president. I think it's entirely possible Trump is bankrupt and doing Putin some favors is the only way to keep himself solvent.

Here is what I had in my early teens. It was my grandfather's that I inherited after his passing. I loved it until I could afford a cassette deck.

1. I *AM* an LGBTQ person, I don't speak for them, but I am one voice.
I tend to avoid harassing people.

2. No.

3. a) Both. They aren't mutually exclusive. I want women to be equal and I want legal protections in place to maintain this. This is not secret information.
b) They do.

4. Question 3b) suggests women should be responsible for their safety. Question 4 seems to criticize the notion of being responsible for your own safety. Glad to see unified thought in this. The answer is I expected random bouts of mockery, judgement, and violence. You know, the other 95% of my life.

5. Because shitting on a group that seeks to change culture to react similarly to loss of black life as it does for white lives, while pointing out where society fails to meet this standard is pretty charactersticly racist.
Also I don't say that "Kill all white people" is not racist.

6. Yes. Did you know that the permanence of objects, the transmission of ideas and culture and systems of law are based on events in the past? That by studying history we can understand how humans work in a unique way, that knowing that say, there was a WWI may help us understand the conditions under which WWII occurred and that this knowledge may help us decide what to do in the aftermath of WWII to avoid a recurrence?
That if a group has historically had problems, many of those problems have probably been inherited along with consequences of the problems (such as poverty, strongly inherited social trait). Yes. Linear time,human affairs, culture. They are all things that exist.

7. Yes, I have many examples of people doing this. Mostly this is due to short lifespan. But there are many manchildren in our culture, who seem to think that other people asserting boundaries is immature.

8. There are programs designed to help boost male education dropout rate. If you 'fight' for 'improvements in the fairness of social order ' to help achieve this, you are a Social Justice Warrior, and so you could just have asked yourself.
Also, American bias? Pretty sure this is not a global stat...

9. Because one focusses on correcting the inequalities between the sexes and was born at a time when women didn't have proper property rights, voting rights etc etc, and so it was primarily focussed on uplifting women and so the name 'feminism'. Egalitarianism on the other hand, is the general pursuit. Many feminists are egalitarian, but not all. Hence different words. English, motherfucker....

10. Nothing, as I am not.

11. No, my grandparents were being enslaved in eastern Europe by the far left and right (but more the right, let's be honest).

Seriously though, I don't remember the liberal protests of "Not all ISIS".

12. Ingroup outgroup hatred and distrust is a universal human trait. Race seems to provoke instinctive group psychology in humans, presumably from evolving in racially separate groups.

13. The phrase is intended to deflate 'Black Lives Matter' whose point is that society seems to disagree, in practice, with this. There's only one realistic motivation to undermining the attempts to equalize how the lives of different races are treated socially.
It's also designed to be perfectly innocuous outside of this context so that white people can totally believe they aren't being dicks by saying it.

14. My social justice fighting is almost always done in secret. I hate the limelight, and I hate endlessly seeking credit for doing the right thing. So I try to keep it to a minimum while also raising consciousness about issues where I can.
Hey wait, did you fall for the bias that the big public figures are representative in all ways of the group? HAHAHAHA! Noob.
Wait, did a man voicing a cartoon kangaroo wearing an Islamic headdress, superimposed on video footage of a woman in a gym grinding her hips tell me to stop trying show off how awesome I am and and to get real?

15. No, they are both not capable of giving consent. Sounds like you have had a bitter experience. Sorry to hear that.

16. I spent two decades trying to change myself. I tortured myself into a deep suicidal insanity. When I stopped that, and when society had changed in response to my and others plights being publicised sympathetically I felt happy and comfortable with myself.
You would prefer millions in silent minorities living through personal hells if the alternative means you have to learn better manners? What a dick.

17. Sure. It's also OK if you say 'nigga' in the context of asking this question. But I'm white and English. You should ask some black Americans if your usage causes unintended messages to be sent. I'd certainly avoid placing joyful emphasis, especially through increased volume, on the word.

18. Ah, you've confused a mixture of ideas and notions within a group as a contradiction of group idealogy. Whoops. I don't understand gender identity. I get gender, but I never felt membership in any group. That's how I feel, and have since the 1990s. The internet has allowed disparate and rare individuals to form groups, and some of these groups are people with different opinions about how they feel about gender and they are very excited to meet people other people with idiosyncratic views as they had previously been alone with their eccentric perspective.

19. If white men are too privileged then the society is not my notion of equal.

20. After rejecting the premise as nonsensical. In as much as I want rules to govern social interactions that take into consideration the diversity of humanity as best as possible, I recognize those same rules will govern my behaviour.

21. Women can choose how to present themselves. Video Game creators choose how to present women in their art. I can suggest that the art routinely portrays women as helpless sex devices, while supporting women who wish to do so for themselves.

22. You DO that? I've never even had the notion. I just sort of listen and digest and try to see if gaps can reasonably be filled with pre-existent knowledge or logical inferrences and then I compare and contrast that with my own differring opinion and I consider why someone might have come to their ideas. Assuming they aren't stupid I try to understand as best I can and present to them my perspective from their perspective. I don't sing, or plug in headphones or have an imaginary rock concert.

23. I have done no such thing. Look, here I am listening to you. You have all been asking questions that have easy answers to if you looked outside your bubble of fighting a handful of twitter and youtube users thinking these people represent the entirety of things and seeking only to destroy them with your arguments rather than understanding the ideas themselves.

24. Reverse Racism is where white guys are systematically (and often deliberately) disadvantaged - such as the complaints against Affirmative Action. I'm sure your buddies can fill you in on the details. The liberal SJWs you hate tend to roll their eyes when they hear it too. Strange you should ask.

25. No. I've never seen the list. I just use whatever pronouns people feel comfortable with. Typically I only need to know three to get by in life, same as most other English speakers.

26. I'm the audience motherfucker, and so are you. That's how it works.

27. I don't do those things, but yes, I have considered the notion of concept saturation in discourse. Have you considered the idea that people vary in their identification of problems, based on a number of factors. Some people are trigger happy and this may be a legitimate problem. Since you are aware of this, you also have a duty to try to overcome the saturation biases.
Similarly, if you keep using the word 'fucking', motherfucker, you'll find it loses its impact quite quickly. See this post motherfucker. Probably why you needed to add the crash zoom for impact. You could have achieved more impact with less sarcasm and and a more surprising fuck.

I know it's Colbert's shtick and I never really got into it, but still...

"I have friends who live and work in London. They said "don't worry,we're very sensible people."

What's sensible for people in London might not be sensible for people in Salford. Or Boston. Or Wolverhampton. London, or the South-East in general, is as representative of the UK as the East/West Coast is of the US.

The hinterland has been drained at the expense of the center, on both a global and a national scale. If you live and work in the City of London, things might look quite ok, and whatever issues there are only need some reforms to no longer be an issue. But if your factory, the factory that provided jobs for the people in your home town, closed down ten, twenty years ago and now the best you can get is zero-hour contracts, then no, things are not ok.

People up top keep telling you that the economy is growing, that everyone's gonna be better off, that it's ok for multinational corporations and rich individuals to optimise their taxes, while they cut your welfare. Banks get a bailout, you get to pay the bedroom tax.

So no, your sensible friends, if they exist, live in a different universe than many of their countrymen. That's the disconnect we've been talking about.

-----
"The British economy is tanking. The pound has plunged to its lowest level since 1985... The Dow lost 611 points."

Again, so what? If the economy is growing and it has no effect on you, why should you give a jar of cold piss about the value of the pound or the stock exchange? Arguably, a drop in the exchange rate of the pound makes it easier for you to export your goods and raises the prices for imports, thereby encouraging you to produce the shit yourself. The UK does have a sovereign currency, unlike the Spanish, the Greeks, the Portuguese or the Italians who have to suffer internal devaluations, because Wolfgang Schäuble says so.

"Equity losses over $2 trillion"

Why should that matter? QE has pushed up stock prices beyond any resonable level, so what meaning do these book values hold? Not to mention that a lot of people made a shitload of money by shorting these stocks, including George Soros against Deutsche.

"There'll be no more money"

QE never trickled down anyway, makes no difference. Corbyn's people call their version "QE for the People" and "Green QE" for a reason: the previous version was only meant to prop up banks and stock values.

--------------

On a more general note, the hatred, the racism, the xenophobia... in most cases, it's a pressure valve. You leash out against someone else, you need someone to blame. The narrative is that we're living in a meritocracy, which makes it your fault that you didn't inherit an investment portfolio. So you start blaming yourself. You're a fuck-up. You worked hard and not only didn't climb the ladder, you actually went down. There's depression for ya. Guess what happens if someone, a person of perceived authority, then comes along and tells you it's not your fault, it's the fault of the immigrants. That narrative is very appealing if history is any indication. Even the supposedly most prosperous country in the EU, Germany, has the very same issue in the eastern parts, where there is no hope for a meaningful job.

People need work, meaningful work. Wanna guess how many of those "xenophobes" would be out in the street protesting against immigrants if they had a meaningful job with decent pay? Not to many would be my guess.

So the likes of Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson are providing the narrative. But the lack of social cohesion is a result of market fundamentalism, of Thatcherism, of Third Way social-democrats leaving the lower half of the income distribution to the wolves. You can't exclude large swaths of the population from the benefits of increased productivity, etc. Social dividend, they called it. It's what keeps the torches and pitchforks locked away in the barn.

Bernie or bust.


25 things I trust more than Hillary Clinton:
• Mexican tap water
• A wolverine with a ‘pet me’ sign
• A mixed drink served by Bill Cosby
• A straight shave from Jodi Arias
• An elevator ride with Ray Rice
• Browns going to the Super Bowl
• Brian Williams memory
• Pete Carroll coaching decisions
• Loch Ness monster sightings
• Pinocchio
• The Boy that cried Wolf
• A snapping turtle in a mud bath
• A Nigerian inheritance email
• A pilot alone in the cockpit
• A factory packed parachute
• A test fart in bed with the flu
• Tying Anthony Weiner’s shoes
• Harry Reid’s exercise equipment
• A kiss from Judas
• An Afghan wearing a backpack
• A Dana White apology
• Keeping my healthcare plan
• A North Korean trial
• A BIC pen that won’t leak
• A tuna fish sandwich left on a city bus