Just..so..bad. Why is it so hard to write a good script? A story board? A director who has seen a movie or two? Lets CinimaSins this bitch;

1. opening shot is two shots at very wrong focal lengths, or that hole is actually very small.

2. One would think pre rendered special effects would not have issues with limited fill rates, but this comet clearly looks like its using a smoke trail from a video game on minimum graphic settings. You can count the number of particles on one hand.

3. For a desert nomad in a sand storm, she has an amazingly clean face, also, hoods that pull forward?

4. nomad is pointing at the clear as day impact landing of meteor as if it NEEDED to be pointed out.

5. a fairly large amount of simulated camera shake despite flames being so thin they don't smoke.

6. A horribly done transition shot where the boy is surrounded by smoke, fire, and lava, all except in the direction the camera is pointing.

7. Large tank army that no one notices until it passes them.

8. Physics, or lack of. the entire scene. Those 2 bypeds look like they were motioned captured by a two year old playing with his toys.

9. The expression on the boys face of surprise makes no sense for a robot of some sort who has crashed to the surface of a planet of which he had full intention of kicking ass in. The scowl afterwards makes it even more awkward.

10. what then proceeds is what can best be described as live gameplay from a random indie game from the steam store that utilizes a mostly black color pallet to hide the fact that nothing is texture mapped, low polygon models, and something that only slightly passes as a physics engine.

The funny thing was that after the genesis, they almost always neglected to have a solid library of games available for their hardware. The game gear was incredibly more capable than the gameboy, but they didn't support it with titles. Same as the nomad. If they could have managed to swing one of their portables into being a viable nintendo competitor, they might still be around.

http://www.sciencealert.com/these-sea-nomad-children-can-see-underwater-like-dolphins

"[the] world is actually healthier, wealthier, better educated, more tolerant, less violent than it has ever been."

Not in places like Afghanistan, Libya, Jemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, downtown Chicago, Detroit or Cleveland. Not in Greece. And I'm not entirely sure it's a better place for the hundreds of millions of Chinese who left their rural areas to become work nomads. Also not sure about the all the millions of people in Africa whose livelihood gets crushed by subsidised produce/corn from the West. Not sure about all the Indian farmers who are driven into suicide by the monopoly powers of seed suppliers. Not sure about India as a whole, now suffering from the third year in a row of a belated monsoon and horrific drought.

"Democracy means you don't everything you want, when you want it, all the time" ... "and occasionally comprise, and stay principled, but recognise that it's a long march towards progress"

He talks the talk, but even for a center-right guy, he doesn't walk the walk. Principles went out the window in Gitmo. Principles went out the window when the drivers behind the illegal war of aggression in Iraq were not prosecuted in accordance with the Nuremberg Principles. Principles went out the window when carpet surveillance pissed all over the Constitution. Principles went out the window when US military forces aid Al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria just because they oppose Assad. Even mentioning principles in the face of the gruesome, drone-driven terror campaigns in at least half a dozen countries makes me want to vomit.

And don't get me started on compromise. If you ban single-payer and drop the public option before negotiations begin, that's not compromise. That's theatre meant to mislead us plebs while you add an additional layer of "market" to an already dysfunctional market, which ends up profiting the insurance companies yet again.

Just to point out, I didn't say that. I'm not taking a moral cue from how animals behave. I'm saying our species and precursors have a long history of eating meat and it turned out pretty good for us.

(aka - my ancestors are smiling down at me imperial, can you say the same?!)

For the record if i had to kill my own food, i would have no problem with that. I'd rather pay someone to do it for me - yes. But if i needed food and could get my hands on an animal, you better believe i'm sleeping on a full stomach that night.

But as for eating less bacon if you had to slaughter the pig - if you were a farmer, settler or nomad or something and you had pigs you'd probably eat lots of bacon. In society right now, it's pretty unrealistic to slaughter your own pig if you live in an average suburb. It makes more sense to buy bacon than slaughter a pig for most people right now, but there are situations when the opposite would be true and i don't think it would bother me (or you).

It's not inhumane ('humane' being another oxymoron, because it's meaning, and acting like a normal human, are opposites) because 1)they have a life at all, which they would not if not given the opportunity by my family 2) they have a place to live that life, which they would not if not given the use of the land and 3) nature also creates barriers to movement, so it's not unnatural for an animal to live it's entire lifespan in one place...perhaps for cattle, but not the rest. Farm animals are not humans, and those that have an aversion to being stationary have no place on a farm. You could say that not being nomadic is 'inhumane', as our natural state is not sedentary, but few would argue it's 'cruel'.
'Animals' are not humans, so are not slaves. That idea makes you sound ridiculous. See the South Park episode for a good example.
Stopping suffering is not within our scope.
There are many reasons why stopping meat eating is not reasonable, but the one you should be the most interested in is, if humans didn't eat cattle, they might be extinct. The same goes for many animals we eat, and if we didn't eat things like pork, the ecological disaster feral pigs create would be almost as bad as what humans do.
It would be easier and cheaper to change the conditions in the slums of India and elsewhere than it would be to eradicate the meat production (edit:and consumption) of the entire planet. What do the people do now that no longer have jobs? What do you do with all the animals that no longer have a 'use' and don't own property to move onto? How do you control their numbers so they don't destroy what's left of the planet?
Technically, yes, all humans are animals. Mentally handicapped humans are not TREATED 'like animals', by which you MEAN treated poorly and without thought for their comfort and well being, which in fact is NOT how most animals are treated in our first world society, no matter how much you think so. Factory farms are a different matter.
When dolphins take control, they can treat mentally handicapped dolphins better than average humans. It's not arbitrary to treat your own species as the most important, it's an evolutionary trait almost all species likely possess.
No, I can't eat an entire vegan diet. I've tried many vegan foods, and found them ALL inedible, some made me sick.

You made blanket statements about how ALL animals are treated, and how ALL meat is produced and then defended that blanket statement. I'm glad you now admit your mistake, I hope you can see it through and stop blanket blaming ALL meat eaters.

What other people eat is farther outside your influence than how they treat their children.

Without the calorie dense food that is 'meat', we would still be nomadic gatherers, if we could exist at all. Eating meat is one of the things that gave us the energy to evolve those 'higher brains' that can choose our actions and determine what's 'rational'.
You will never see a vegan Olympic athlete. (Edit: well, maybe in Olympic curling...)

Daesh has brought about change...a change that THEY see as positive. That's not a good argument.

Yes, you are a monster for supporting such unabashed, unproductive carnivores ;-)...and I would hazard a guess that you don't feed them only free range, gmo free turkey carcasses, so you sound worse than me, the unashamed meat eater that pays the extra money for proper animal treatment....not just for them but because it's healthier meat too.

I did my part for the animals and the planet by not having children. ;-) Too bad I'm such a minority that it won't make a whit of difference.

Wait...so she thinks if a word is used as a racial slur once it can never have another definition? I'm thinking specifically of "gypsy" here. How can one be upset that it wrongly labels Romani as Egyptian, and also claim it can't mean 'nomadic'? Language is fluid, and because a phrase or word might have a 'racist' origin does not mean it can't ever have another meaning. Duh.

I think many Romani are no longer nomadic because you can't just move across international borders without papers, and they historically refuse to do government paperwork, get IDs, pay taxes, etc. That's also why many were deported, they refused to live by the rules of the countries they were living in. Especially in todays climate, refusing to have a verifiable identity is considered unacceptable in many countries. This should surprise no one.

And thus your legendary journey begins. Newtboy and the bar fight nomads.

@shinyblurry, respectfully,
The bible lies. It's stories were probably not meant to be an 'explanation' of reality in the first place, but more likely were created as fables to explain morality...thanks Constantine. (So you know, he's the emperor that ACTUALLY compiled the bible together from various oral traditions, as a political ploy to consolidate religions to make them easier to control.)

You and I have been over this claim repeatedly...Not a whit of EVIDENCE has ever been provided to me, only idiots regurgitating nonsense from 2000+ years ago-
(nonsense made up mostly by Arab/Semitic nomads thousands of years before they were written, likely made up as morality tales, also to 'explain' how they thought certain things worked before the scientific method came around to actually explain reality...examples, the sun and universe spin around the flat earth, the sun rides on a chariot, witches and demons are responsible for any bad thing that happens, etc.)
-idiots who change their interpretations when their current interpretation is shown clearly and undeniably to be completely wrong and indicative of a lack of basic understanding. As evidence goes, that's evidence that religion is wrong and harmful, not that it's correct and helpful.

If god is going to provide evidence of his existence to me, he's taking his sweet time and allowing the issue to be confused with 'facts' and 'reality'. (I'm assuming that's what you meant, and not that there would be proof of polytheism, as you wrote).

The sooner you come to grips with all that, the sooner you can stop saying ridiculous things as 'fact' and ignoring fact as either 'willful suppression of god's grace' or 'Satan tricking you'. It's odd to me that no religious people ever think the bible itself might be a creation of Satan, tricking you into terrible behavior and hatred of 'infidels', encouraging and causing behavior it specifically forbids (Eg-stoning to death/thou shalt not kill...worshiping crosses and or statues of Jesus/thou shalt not create any graven (carved) images).

I hope reality will provide everyone with evidence of it's existence, and people will stop suppressing the truth because they love their religion.

This map/video is so wrong on so many levels.

Firstly, to call the entirety of the present day United States "Indian Land" before the states were created is wrong and idiotic. Native Americans (another misnomer) were not present in every spot of every bit of the lands in any way. For the majority of the middle of the states, Natives were nomadic peoples, thus while they could lay claim to all of the land if you asked, it is just as dumb as saying that a bear owns all of the territory it can walk on.

Secondly, for those of you who think that Native Americans should have more reservations, you should read any number of books by Native American scholars that say that the worst thing the governments have done is treat Native Americans as separate from standard citizens of the countries that have them. What they should do is eliminate reservations altogether to get rid of the dependency trap that is killing the Native American people as we speak. One might say, "well, they will lose their culture." But this, too is incorrect. Have the Chinese lost their culture in North America? Have the varying kinds of Europeans? In my city many people still celebrate Chinese New Year and lots celebrate Saint Patrick's Day and Robbie Burns day (regardless of whether or not these are ex-pat holidays).

So in conclusion, what the government did in the past vis-a-vis the murder of Native Peoples was absolutely despicable. However, taking land was very often something that happened without bloodshed and was done with trades and treaties, the bloodshed that followed was a clash between terrified Europeans and the people whose culture they didn't understand. But for many of the incidents the Native Peoples sanctified the taking of the land.

The fact that we live in an epoch where a traditionally nomadic peoples recently enthroned by nature of the resources beneath their feet have the leisure to outfit their shorts with locking differentials and perform stunts on empty highways in the desert is testament enough to this being an excellent example of the *eia (evolution in action) of the entire human race.

I remember that it was about the clothing of nomadic Arab tribes I think..

Besides the last ten years here in Texas and a few months here and there to work, I pretty much lived like a nomad from 88'- 2001-San Francisco, Portland, back to San Fran, Austin, Pagosa Springs, Co.,Durango, Co. then back to Texas-Short stints in-between cities in smaller towns for weeks or months at a time-Now that I have been pretty static for the last decade I kinna got the gypsy bug again....Been thinking about buying another bus and decking it out for living. Had a school bus me and my ex and kid lived in for about a year-and-a-half prior to our divorce....Now that I am a confirmed bachelor and likely to remain so, I have a hankering for the road again.....Kids live in Seattle wit the ex and they've legalized the drug that would make a livelihood for me there palpable....

>> ^curiousity:
Thank you for providing this example of your irrationality and intellectual dishonesty by, among other things, completely ignoring the counterpoints to the few studies I was able to get to.

I didn't ignore your counterpoints, I just took them in the balance of this comment of yours:

"Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for"

Since you had already dismissed me as unworthy of your time, I saw little reason to devote much of my time to responding to your points. And even if everything you said were true, which I do not concede, it still wouldn't be enough to overturn the general conclusion of homosexuality being harmful to the individual, community and society. The evidence from the Netherlands is particularly powerful as it shows that even in societies that are open to homosexuality, the risk factors are the same or even worse. I'll address your points:

gay party scene: please be specific..I can think of one study.

too old: if it has changed, please show the data

>> ^curiousity:
"Link below is from 2003. It clearly shows the need for STD and sex education in this country. If I was less educated and wasn't worried about getting a woman pregnant, I wouldn't worry about condoms either. It's not a hard concept, but one that I imagine you will easily dismiss because it undermines your argument."

Are homosexuals less educated on STDs and sex education? How else do you account for them being 63 percent of all new cases? Why are the statistics the same everywhere you look. Sex education can only do so much..many people know when they are engaging in risky behavior and do it anyway.

>> ^curiousity:
"A study from two cities in a southern state from 1994. I've included a quote for this study that, apparently, you overlooked: "Although a low response rate severely limits the interpretation of these data, they are justified by the absence of similar published data for both gays and lesbians living outside major metropolitan areas." (This data isn't very useful, but we don't have any other data so we should use it. Again, not a hard concept, but it undermines you conclusions... Ignore! Ignore!)"

Here is more data:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15838193

>> ^curiousity:
"I like how you didn't read all of those 134 words in the second link - "helps users escape internalized homophobia or other social stigmas." I also find it shocking that gay men in long-term, stable relationships are not constantly going to an STD testing clinic - Does this point make sense? You haven't been completely robbed of all logic, have you? If you want to be a little more honest with yourself and actually look at the studies, it is easy to see the gaps that undermines your jumping to validate your viewpoint."

I'm sure that some drug use may be based on their feelings of being persecuted, but if it's all based on discrimination then why are the usage rates the same in countries where homosexuality is practically institutionalized? I also wonder where personal responsibility ever comes into play? Do you think people can blame all of their behavior on environmental factors and not take any responsibility for their own choices? If I lose all of my money because of some dishonest bank and become homeless, does that mean I now have a right to steal? Or when I steal, am I not a criminal?

>> ^curiousity:
There is a classic false argument of saying that being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance. If you want to classify my refusal to allow your intolerant claims to stand unabated in that manner, so be it. I do apologize that I didn't make myself more clear about not thinking you were a homophobe, but the simple fact is that I look at people's actions and speech instead of why they say they are doing something. Your actions of condemnation are the same end result and that is what I meant to draw the parallel too, but I had to leave for work and unfortunately didn't make that point clearly.

How are my claims intolerant? I am not intolerant of anyone, I am intolerant of sin. There is a difference between judging someone as a person and judging their behavior. I am incapable of judging anyone, because I would only be a hypocrite, being equally guilty as they are, but I can tell if what they're doing is right or wrong. And yes, it is intolerant (by definition) to be intolerant of those who don't tolerate your position. You either welcome everyone to the table, including those who disagree with you, or you do exactly what you accuse them of doing to you.

>> ^curiousity:
It irks me that you dismiss what I say as trying to undermine only part of your evidence. (To be more honest, I think that irksome feeling is more tied into your utter refusal to address those points of contention… which was expected, but still frustrating.) I didn't have enough time to go through all of your provided evidence. I had to leave for work soon and while writing is lovely, it is a laborious action for me - it takes a while for me to write anything surpassing cursory. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that I actually was reading and thinking about the studies. So while you were able to throw together quite a few apparently supporting studies for your viewpoint in an hour, I was much slower because I read those studies beyond the headline and skimming the abstract. Congratulations, you succeeded in becoming skillful on the quantity side... perhaps now it is time to focus on the quality side.

As I indicated, your post was dismissive..therefore I didn't spend much time on it. I appreciate the time you did spend but there was no indication you weren't interested in further dialogue.

>> ^curiousity:
Please in the future, respond after reading/viewing any evidence provided. This is similar to all the comments I see here asking you to actually watch the video before announcing that (shock!) what you thought was right was still right because you saw something that you disagree with in the first couple of minutes. If you don’t have the evidence or that evidence is something is the hazy distance of memory, just leave a comment that you need to refresh your memory on those resources. I completely understand this situation as I voraciously and nomadically spelunk into various intellectual subjects. On a semi-regular basis and depending on the subject, I will have to re-find that research that I faintly remember. I know that my writing style can come off as hyper-aggressive and be a little off-putting (especially when coupled how people have responded to you here on videosift.) I can only speak for myself, but if your response to my initial comment said simple that you had read it in some research long ago, that was hazy, and you needed to find those sources – this conversation could have went a very different route.

I'm open to a change in conversation. I am not super interested in arguing about statistics until kingdom come. I realize that they are not going to convince you of anything. I was just trying to support my statement. Since you feel that you understand some psychological motive about me that underlies my behavior, what do you think that is exactly? I can tell you that I do sincerely feel love for all people, even those who openly hate me. Mind you, sometimes I fail to show it, or even show the opposite..but that is something the Lord is helping me with. Some people are harder to love than others, but I see them all as being in the image of God and worthy of my love and respect. I can honestly say that have no predisposition against homosexuals, but you feel I do; so tell me why.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^shinyblurry:

...snip...

Thank you for providing this example of your irrationality and intellectual dishonesty by, among other things, completely ignoring the counterpoints to the few studies I was able to get to.

There is a classic false argument of saying that being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance. If you want to classify my refusal to allow your intolerant claims to stand unabated in that manner, so be it. I do apologize that I didn't make myself more clear about not thinking you were a homophobe, but the simple fact is that I look at people's actions and speech instead of why they say they are doing something. Your actions of condemnation are the same end result and that is what I meant to draw the parallel too, but I had to leave for work and unfortunately didn't make that point clearly.

It irks me that you dismiss what I say as trying to undermine only part of your evidence. (To be more honest, I think that irksome feeling is more tied into your utter refusal to address those points of contention… which was expected, but still frustrating.) I didn't have enough time to go through all of your provided evidence. I had to leave for work soon and while writing is lovely, it is a laborious action for me - it takes a while for me to write anything surpassing cursory. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that I actually was reading and thinking about the studies. So while you were able to throw together quite a few apparently supporting studies for your viewpoint in an hour, I was much slower because I read those studies beyond the headline and skimming the abstract. Congratulations, you succeeded in becoming skillful on the quantity side... perhaps now it is time to focus on the quality side.

Please in the future, respond after reading/viewing any evidence provided. This is similar to all the comments I see here asking you to actually watch the video before announcing that (shock!) what you thought was right was still right because you saw something that you disagree with in the first couple of minutes. If you don’t have the evidence or that evidence is something is the hazy distance of memory, just leave a comment that you need to refresh your memory on those resources. I completely understand this situation as I voraciously and nomadically spelunk into various intellectual subjects. On a semi-regular basis and depending on the subject, I will have to re-find that research that I faintly remember. I know that my writing style can come off as hyper-aggressive and be a little off-putting (especially when coupled how people have responded to you here on videosift.) I can only speak for myself, but if your response to my initial comment said simple that you had read it in some research long ago, that was hazy, and you needed to find those sources – this conversation could have went a very different route.