@CaptainPlanet:

Why would we discuss his manhood?

Any other celebrity out there, we'd never 'discuss their manhood', so why would we discuss Manson's? Wait, you're trying to use that meaningless and irrelevant aspect of his life against him, I got it.

Hey everybody let's discuss Marilyn Manson's music. Wait, no one likes it. Hey let's discuss his manhood. Wait, he doesn't have it anymore. Hey let's discuss his personality. Wait, he's a product. /done

I can not upvote that much cheese unless there is a cheese channel.
Although I confess I loved the film as a kid, watching it again as a grown-up, I couldn´t help noticing it is, with all due respect, the gayest film ever.
There are the big hairy bears in leather underpants, the robin hoods in green spandex with moustache, the enemies use ballet clothes and the metaphor for manhood is sticking your arm in many dirty holes. And, as seen in the clip above, instead of fighting they play american football. When Flash is executed he wears also leather shorts, and he couldn´t care less for the girl. plus Ming is a drag and the soundtrack is by queen...

oh, if we but learned to initiate ourselves into manhood, we wouldn't have such myopic fools as leaders.

Yeah, fuck manhood imo.

Ahh MarineGunrock.

I think you're an idiot, but that's based on your small minded bigoted attitude towards gay people.

But aside from bringing that up again, I want to quote:
"IT'S CALLED NATURE!" -- MarineGunrock

I disagree on 2 counts:
1. i did a very very quick search on wikipedia, which told me that a "gold scorpion" appears in israel and egypt, whereas the "black widow" appears in south africa, north america and australia.. so based on that information ALONE (and this may come as a surprise but i am not an expert), they're not gonna meet naturally. so it's not like we gain any knowledge about nature from it. we know the behaviour of both creatures, so there's no value there. if they never meet in nature then we gain nothing there. and i don't think cd covers occur naturally in the wild so i don't think we're getting any decent knowledge about terrain usage.
(in retrospect i admit that we may have discovered something unique, and i'm simply manipulating the fact that nothing impressive happened - fair enough, call me on that)

2. your argument has flaws.. where does "IT'S NATURE!!" begin and end? if i took a 6 year old toddler and put him in a room with a 12 foot long monster snake from the movies, that wouldn't be nature, would it? would a labrador vs. the snake be nature? at what point are you going to distinguish between nature and just plain old fashioned cockfighting? like it or not, it's not nature. if you'd done it in a garden i could give the benefit of the doubt, but here it's just cockfighting. i don't know what you think the difference is between cockfighting and this is. like a cock goes through a whole survival and combat training course?

they're "bred and raised to fight", as though that means anything other than "i'll breed this big cock with this big cock (lol big cock), then make it fight weaker smaller cocks for food!".. i don't know, i don't breed fighting-cocks, but i'm willing to hazard a guess that they aren't sent away to cock-camp with a big cock-drill-sergeant screaming at it until it eventually turns it into a man-cock.....and we learn a lot about the human condition, progression to manhood, and the secret inner demons of the bullying drill-sergeant-cock.

you can argue about "cognitive ability and/or the ability to feel or experience pain/terror" till you're blue in the face, and you'll still never be 100% certain whether or not the thing can think/experience/feel. especially because we can only understand thinking/feeling/experiencing in our OWN terms.

not having a go at the poster, simply putting forth the arguments for the opinion that this really isn't a nature thing.. it's just small-fry cockfighting.

and, always, winding MarineGunrock up.

EDIT;
MarineGunrock proving he's a deep and intelligent guy: STFU next time before you open your ignorant mouth.

i'm paraphrasing, but i think you effectively told fade to "SHUT UP BEFORE SPEAKING NEXT TIME!!".. keep at it slick, you're dead special

That would be:

Yeah, yeah (Oooo)
Uh, hey hey
All right, yeah
Oooo

CHORUS
What a man, what a man, what a man
What a mighty good man
What a man, what a man, what a man
What a mighty good man
What a man, what a man, what a man
What a mighty good man
What a man, what a man, what a man
What a mighty good man

I wanna take a minute or two, and give much respect due
To the man that's made a difference in my world
And although most men are ho's he flows on the down low
Cuz I never heard about him with another girl
But I don't sweat it because it's just pathetic
To let it get me involved in that he said/she said crowd
I know that ain't nobody perfect, I give props to those who deserve it
And believe me y'all, he's worth it
So here's to the future cuz we got through the past
I finally found somebody that can make me laugh
(Ha ha ha) You so crazy
I think I wanna have your baby

CHORUS

My man is smooth like Barry, and his voice got bass
A body like Arnold with a Denzel face
He's smart like a doctor with a real good rep
And when he comes home he's relaxed with Pep
He always got a gift for me everytime I see him
A lot of snot-nosed ex-flames couldn't be him
He never ran a corny line once to me yet
So I give him stuff that he'll never forget
He keeps me on Cloud Nine just like the Temps
He's not a fake wannabe tryin' to be a pimp
He dresses like a dapper don, but even in jeans
He's a God-sent original, the man of my dreams

Yes, my man says he loves me, never says he loves me not
Tryin' to rush me good and touch me in the right spot
See other guys that I've had, they tried to play all that mac shit
But every time they tried I said, "That's not it"
But not this man, he's got the right potion
Baby, rub it down and make it smooth like lotion
Yeah, the ritual, highway to heaven
From seven to seven he's got me open like Seven Eleven
And yes, it's me that he's always choosin'
With him I'm never losin', and he knows that my name is not Susan
He always has heavy conversation for the mind
Which means a lot to me cuz good men are hard to find

CHORUS

My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller
He takes his time and does everything right
Knocks me out with one shot for the rest of the night
He's a real smooth brother, never in a rush
And he gives me goose pimples with every single touch
Spends quality time with his kids when he can
Secure in his manhood cuz he's a real man
A lover and a fighter and he'll knock a knucker out
Don't take him for a sucker cuz that's not what he's about
Every time I need him, he always got my back
Never disrespectful cuz his mama taught him that

CHORUS

I'm way hetero, voting on a gay video doesn't mean I'm a bottom. I voted laughing about the very idea of the guy on the right discussing degrees of masculinity. What is it about being gay like the guy on the right that just dissolves the edges of manhood and turns up the pansy factor to such a high degree?

Are you guys f**king serious? You think it's OK to end somebody's life over a physical object, owned by the killer, and taken by the victim? ..

There are only two reasons people get killed during a home invasion. Either they confront the invader, with a weapon of some kind, or the invader has nothing to loose since he's already risking his life. (Due to the society and gun-acceptance)

Here in Norway, the police don't carry guns. They have them in the car, locked away, for use if needed. This means that the criminals don't really use guns either.. Of course there are gun-robberies, murders, etc. BUT in the big picture, it's a different world.
The way gun-enthusiasts go off on a tear when we discuss gun-politics, is as if the gun itself was their manhood. The reason guns are constitutionalized in
USA is only because off the founding fathers saw a possibility where the people would have to fight the government. I don't say this doesn't apply today, but not in the same way.. That would only work if both sides had muskets.. But that's not the reality anymore..

Another problem I see is that If you have a gun, the likelihood of a bad guy shooting after you / back at you is a million times greater, than if your hands are up, and you're not coming off as threatening. I can't see how people can't understand that..
And further more, it's only property.. I got my car stolen once, but I didn't want to kill the guy, nor have anybody else kill him!

Gah.. Guns kill people.. People kill people.. There shouldn't be a "not" in there.

Is it the importance to protect yourself, or is it just really fun to play with? What if your three-year old plays with it.. Will it be just as fun?

-seltar

In response to Choggie. I am from Britain and I agree all the cameras and informers is crap. But let's back up a bit, to associate not having a gun with being emasculated (remove manhood) is to say that the bigger your gun, the greater your manhood. And that is just plain weird.

Calling BULLSHIT on me? OH NOES, SERIOUS BUSINESS. Well, ok then, BATTLE ON CAPS LOCK CRUISE CONTROL.

(Patriot, I'm sorry I won't be addressing your specific concerns in this post, but Qruel really wants to earn that Earth Badge so he can catch 'em all and get this sift back in the mecca of manhood that is the Science channel, so this one's for him but you may read along as you please and we can continue our discussion once the dust settles and the poo falls.)

Now, where was I? ALLONS-Y PIKACHU GO.

SCIENCE CHANNEL
Funny how you just happened to leave off the second part of my channel's description. Let's read that part, shall we?

"Be proud that although quality science videos are somewhat rarer to come by and harder to find, we do not play to the lowest common denominator, that rather our Science sifts are raising the bar and challenging all sifters to step up and THINK.

On a casual note, what belongs here: science-related sifts, obviously. Please be sure not to sift technology-only videos, or slightly geeky/nerdy videos. Videos belong here only if there is something definitely about science in them. This can include appropriate descriptions, so be sure to add more reading material when possible. In addition, if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate."

Note that last bit there. It's the same reason why I will kick out videos that say we never landed on the moon because the earth is actually flat. Oh, sure, it's a theory. It's also an incorrect theory. The term science is so damn broad that it could encompass damn near everything, but I'm not going to lower the quality of sifts on my channel just because it might include something poorly passable as science. It should NOT matter whether I agree or not IT IS BAD SCIENCE AND SO IT GETS KICKED OUT OF THE CHANNEL.
______________________________________________

I went to the Science channel and checked out videos and comments and have had a number of instances where I require submitters to prove the worthiness of their video, and subsequently removed it from the channel. That's not our job. It's my job. You think I don't require the same certain standard for other sifts? Tell me exactly what my comment was on this Schrodinger's Cat sift. Hell, and that's even well within scientifically supported theory, rather than a theory that's been dissed and dismissed for decades. Don't tell me about how I'm running the Science channel. I would know. I RUN IT, CHRIS BROWN STYLE.

This video discusses SCIENCE, and as I stated, IT DOESN'T MATTER. There are a shitload of intelligent design apologists' videos out there that discuss SCIENCE and I sure as hell won't willingly put those religious closet-case videos on here either.

I'm reading through your post above and I see numerous NON-SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES to studies done on fluoride by BIASED WEBSITES and just happened to notice that YOU FAILED TO QUOTE ANY STUDIES YOURSELF. Copy-pasting is not exactly awe-inspiring debate, and copy-pasting sources that can't be described with words like "PEER REVIEWED" and "STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT" and "DIRECT PROOF" is actually not even worth debating. Come back with real sources and then maybe we can actually begin the debate proper.

I kicked the video out after putting on a number of comments on fluoride and getting nowhere, specifically the part about meeting on even scientific ground by citing papers from well-accepted journals. And here you are again, copy-pasting from FLUORIDETRUTH911.org or whatever site it is you've found on Google.

I should NOT reinstate this video into the SCIENCE channel until I really feel like it deserves to be there, and I hate to say that things don't look promising.

Now, let's take a look at two real scientific papers! I'm going to toss these out here, and you come back and analyze the data and refute the conclusions. I'm serious. You can choose to meet me on a scientifically-accepted level, or this sift can sit and watch all the real science sifts play while psychic healing videos try to get it to pay attention to them.

STUDY 1 WO MEN QU LE HAO DOU TIAN
Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review.
Abstract: The aim of this paper was to critically review the current role of community water fluoridation in preventing dental caries. Original articles and reviews published in English language from January 2001 to June 2006 were selected through MEDLINE database. Other sources were taken from the references of the selected papers. For the past 50 years community water fluoridation has been considered the milestone of caries prevention and as one of the major public health measures of the 20th century. However, it is now accepted that the primary cariostatic action of fluoride occurs after tooth eruption. Moreover, the caries reduction directly attributable to water fluoridation have declined in the last decades as the use of topical fluoride had become more widespread, whereas enamel fluorosis has been reported as an emerging problem in fluoridated areas. Several studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities suggested that this method of delivering fluoride may be unnecessary for caries prevention, particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has became low. Although water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in poor and disadvantaged populations, the use of topical fluoride offers an optimal opportunity to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries.

This article is gathering evidence through a metastudy of sorts in order to analyze the efficacy of community water fluoridation in preventing dental damage associated with low fluoride levels in combination with poor dental care (significant past 0.1%) while also noting that efficacy drops off due to proper fluoridation through topical application and personalized regular professional dental care. The paper goes on to suggest that suboptimal care results in a negative trending in the absence of general fluoridation.

STUDY 2 VAMOS A LEER DESU
Position of the American Dietetic Association: the impact of fluoride on health.
Abstract: The American Dietetic Association reaffirms that fluoride is an important element for all mineralized tissues in the body. Appropriate fluoride exposure and usage is beneficial to bone and tooth integrity and, as such, has an important, positive impact on oral health as well as general health throughout life. Fluoride is an important element in the mineralization of bone and teeth. The proper use of topical and systemic fluoride has resulted in major reductions in dental caries (tooth decay) and its associated disability. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have named fluoridation of water as one of the 10 most important public health measures of the 20th century. Nearly 100 national and international organizations recognize the public health benefits of community water fluoridation for preventing dental caries. However, by the year 2000, over one third of the US population (over 100 million people) were still without this critical public health measure. Fluoride also plays a role in bone health. However, the use of high doses of fluoride for prevention of osteoporosis is considered experimental at this point. Dietetics professionals should routinely monitor and promote the use of systemic and topical fluorides, especially in children and adolescents. The American Dietetic Association strongly reaffirms its endorsement of the appropriate use of systemic and topical fluorides, including water fluoridation, at appropriate levels as an important public health measure throughout the life span.

Now, mind you, this is a position paper from the WORLD'S LARGEST ORGANIZATION OF FOOD AND NUTRITION PROFESSIONALS, WITH OVER THREE QUARTERS OF THE MEMBERSHIP AS REGISTERED DIETITIANS. Functional as a broadscope metastudy, the ADA took the position by announcing their support of fluoridation, noting the support of the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL, THE UNITED STATES' AGENCY FOR MONITORING DISEASE AND EFFECTING PROPER PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY IN RESPONSE. The ADA notes that high doses of fluoride have typically been avoided, while also noting the organization's widespread and unanimous rejection of the theory that fluoride levels have reached toxic levels or that such levels of toxicity are even accurate. Furthermore, they note that levels of toxicity have not been well-established in comparison to demonstrable negative health effects beyond surface-level observation of the possibility of dental caries developing with rats exposed to doses many times those any community in the US receives. They outright reject the theory that high levels of fluoride, even at factors well beyond the maximum range that limits first world countries' drinking supplies, can result in complications beyond aesthetically-noticeable but healthwise insignificant dental issues, even countering with a notable upcoming experimental study on the use of even higher doses of fluoride for pre-empting the development of osteoporosis.




Now feel free to sort through this comment's combination of knowledge and bullshit that I've just dropped in a steaming pile on this sift. Oh, and watch out....it's fluoridated.

See - I've forgotten what these wonderful people have done to keep me safe from the terrible children of Afghanistan.

God forbid anyone should hurt the feelings of these fine, upstanding, courageous - intelligent - examples of American manhood.

Behold all of the marvelous things those poor, pitiful, under-appreciated grunts have done for your country, America.

I'll give a save and a promote to anyone who can find Firefly's manhood.

Calvados, I agree, the clip where Danny Trejo gets his manhood chewed off by a badger is much better but I can't find it :-(

Yah maybe, and Cronyx is still thirty-one flavors of Wrong. Someone stepped up to the plate with a cogent, rational argument and the lot of Maher-"manly-men" (and by the way, he sure is a prime specimen of "natural evolutionary manhood"...not) have no response of any weight.

Maher's got a batting average on the "truth" about as good as A-Rod has been playing lately.