Lol, gays in the SF Castro are 'emboldened'; that doesn't quite capture it. If you've spent any amount of time in that area, it is a bit surreal. For a few blocks, all the posters are of buff, shiny dudes holding hands. It's odd, but not really harmful, and for the 'gay mecca' that it is, it's actually more subtle than most would expect.

That said, I am occasionally irked by some of the more graphic sexual imagery that is put up everywhere in that rea. At times it almost feel like a 'red light' district, and simply distasteful. I'm all for porn, but for fucks sake show a little discretion.

Well I dont know about you doubters but I'm off to Mecca to help improve my dunking chances.

I heard about this on BBC world apparently these 'Scientists' want GMT (UTC) changed for a new Mecca centralised time system.

^And David Duke is the soul of the Republican Party.

If I wanted to harm Black Americans, I'd start by tagging my videos "B Hussein Obama", just so I'd could draw out the bigoted voter who would vote against a perceived Muslim, especially a BLACK Muslim. Or maybe I'd start by calling liberals, the ones who marched for civil rights in the '60s, "fascists". Or maybe I'd perpetuate the stereotype of absentee black fathers.

And while we're at it, if I wanted to hurt homosexuals I'd call them "poo-pushers" and accuse them of "homophilia-at-gunpoint".

Or if I wanted to harm Democrats in general, I'd start by saying they're all "socialists, communists and marxists" who are "bowing toward Mecca".

Anything else you want to add, backwards-ass shit-pickle?

The above argument would make sense if the democrats were actually left wingers.

I agree. Now democrats are (full-blown, counting Clinton) socialists, communists and marxists.

Republicans aren't being "elevated", it just looks that way from all the democrats bowing towards mecca.

Since this douche bag is from my 'neck of the woods', allow me to sound off a bit.

I am so tired of hearing people bitch about the removal of the ten commandments. If the monument had instead said 'There is no God but God and his prophet was Mohammad', these same people would have ripped it out of the ground and driven over it with their pickups. And its bullshit about the commandments being about basic human decency. Yeah some of them are, but the first four are strictly about God. The purpose of separation of church and state is so people like Mr. Scarbrough here can worship how they want with out worry about the government telling them what to do.

Pray in school is another dumbass one. They make it sound like its not allowed at all, this is completely untrue. What isn't allowed is school lead prayer, as in the principal over the morning announcements says, 'Now lets all bow our heads in pray'. I never saw anything that stopped individuals from praying when they wanted. There were plenty of Christian clubs where students and teachers could go pray and talk about God and Jesus all they wanted. During their holy months the Muslim students were allowed to leave class so they could go pray towards Mecca. So I'm tired of hearing how pray and religion isn't allowed in school, because it is, it's just not forced upon everyone. Its about providing a neutral environment where individuals can practice their religion at their discretion.

Hate Crimes: I'm fairly certain there's nothing in the hate crime laws that keep this douche bag from saying whatever he wants. My understanding of hate crime laws is it provides additional punishment for those commit a crime because of someone's ethnicity or gender (sexual orientation still pending). The crime is considered greater because it targets not only the recipient of the crime, but is also meant to intimidate all people of the ethnicity and/or gender of the recipient. Hence it is considered a larger crime because it targets more people than just the one that is the direct recipient.

And I can go on, but I'd be better off stopping now.

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.

You folks who don't see the dynamics created, good or bad, true, false or meaningless for theism, atheism, religions of all kinds, can't seem to see the necessity and beauty of your own place in the dance......there is a place for, and nothing wrong with, theism or atheism....they do co-exist for good reason, and poor folks like Dawkins, deny themselves part of the experience.....just as poor folks like the Bible-thumper next door, or the emotional basket case walking the cube in Mecca for the first time, deny themselves.......Hosea 4:6..."my people perish for lack of knowledge....."

Mary Ann "Ladybug Mecca" Vieira.....de Wash DC....

ant no like ladybugs.....

I am starting to notice a **very disturbing** trend here. It involves those who favor banning slipping into fallacy. You cannot infer that someone "approves racism," or that they are "defending [QM's] exhortations to wipe out entire cultures" from the fact that they argue against using banning as a tool of system administration in the cases at issue. To defend someone's freedom to express their opinion is not the same thing as defending the content of those expressions. If you lack the analytical skills to see this, it is not our problem.

In my opinion, what you have said is not only unreasonable, it is OFFENSIVE. You have essentially called me a racist BASED ON NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. I have said nothing racist in my comments, nor have I ever defended the content of QM's abominable posts. I am merely worried about the chilling effects of banning, and about finding the proper arbiters of what constitutes legitimate speech and what does not. These worries are especially salient to me in light of your glib dismissals of these points when raised by Dag, and your belief that you are somehow qualified to be my protector. Nonetheless, you press ahead undaunted in your certainty that anyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but deserves to be called awful things. How's that for hate-speech, you PRIGS?

In response, LOORIS, I'll say to you exactly what I said to Theo47 on another thread: "you seem like a really nice person who has all the right intentions. But with all due respect, I don't need the likes of you looking out for me. I'm an ex-muslim with family in Mecca. My parents and siblings are still practicing Muslims. If I'm tough-minded enough to put up with QM's bullshit, you should be too. . . .Besides, whenever the guy makes comments like that he turns himself into a laughing stock. Even the other pro Iraq war Republicans are ridiculing him now, on the very thread you are worried about. Personally, that's exactly the kind of ideological opponent I don't mind having around: the kind who says things so damn stupid, he actually makes other like-minded folks wanna switch sides."

Finally, I'd like to point out that Theo47 isn't the only one who's considering leaving. I've only really become an active commenter on the Sift recently, and because I've not submitted any videos, I have no doubt I wouldn't be missed. But if the likes of he and looris get to become the czars of speech around here--and continue engaging in self-righteous name calling and mockery like we've seen in this thread and others--I'll ask that my registry be deleted.

In the meanwhile, NOTA BENE: I will not stand by and be called a racist. If it happens again you better be ready to either back it up, or get embarrassed.

Tofumar

"Great; let's defend intolerance under the guise of free speech."

Theo, you seem like a really nice person who has all the right intentions. But with all due respect, I don't need the likes of you looking out for me. I'm an ex-muslim with family in Mecca. My parents and siblings are still practicing Muslims. If I'm tough-minded enough to put up with QM's bullshit, you should be too.

Besides, whenever the guy makes comments like that he turns himself into a laughing stock. Even the other pro Iraq war Republicans are ridiculing him now, on the very thread you are worried about. Personally, that's exactly the kind of ideological opponent I don't mind having around: the kind who says things so damn stupid, he actually makes other like-minded folks wanna switch sides.

Just my 2 cents.

Peace,

Tofumar

Don't worry, Amsterdam was a thriving mecca of radical Free thinkers long before the US ever existed, and will continue to be so long after the US fizzles out.

If al Gayda is back to its "former" strength, then it stands to reason the fanatical ragheads would be DOUBLE that strength if do-nothing democrats had been in charge.


............../´¯/)...........(\¯`\
............/....//..............\\....\
.........../....//................\\....\
...../´¯/..../´¯\.........../¯`\....\¯`\
.././.../..../..../.|_......_|.\....\....\...\.\..
(.(....(....(..../.)..)..(..(.\....)....)....).)
.\................\/.../....\...\/................/
..\................. /........\................../

mecca delenda est

So the Middle East was a paradise of enlightened rulers before the evil USA exported despotism there?

Ha ha ha.

If the US supports dictators in backwards countries because these evil men serve our interests, then we're the bad guys. BUT if the US gets rid of brutal dictators like Saddam, guess what liberals say? We're STILL the bad guys!

The American people don't have a good Idea of how dangerous the threat is that we face.

Unfortunately, this is true. It's why mecca isn't already a smoldering crater.

"The only way to test these crazy conspiracy theories is to nuke mecca.

That'd just create a larger piece of obsidian to circumambulate.