When my older son was a toddler he would call me by my first name, funny but slightly unnerving.

Its their culture, peer pressure. BTW they probably dont call each other motherf*cker or sonofab*tch habitually. Its amazing how often insults in any culture refer to mothers, appears to be a soft spot. If you listen to the video carefully they dont want to disclose their mothers name publicly so that she could not be shamed (insulted) by others. Not because they dont care, rather because they do care, they just live in a complex society.

I'm lucky to work in a place where my peers and I aren't forced to compete to be recognized for our massive shits, but instead, we take giant shits for the benefit of the whole team.

Crabs dont care. They lack the mechanism to understand their predicament. There is nothing inside a crab that could give informed consent.

Ducks are different, they might not be the cleverest dinosaur, but my guess is they would consciously avoid the slide if they had the choice. The crabs just apply chaos theory.

Informed consent in this case (the crab video) is the human consent that this is funny.

Bryce: Most humans like waterslides. Or pretend to like them (peer pressure). I hate waterslides. Unavoidable if you have kids though. All humans stop liking waterslides after a variable number of consecutive slides (in my case 0). Crabs dont care.

Democracy IS the main check and balance.

Unlimited democracy is a theoretical construct.
Democracy is always "limited". There is always some "merit" bar for voting. There is always a limited agenda of what one can vote for (and get it too). One can experiment with the constraints and see what results one gets. Some experiments can be frightening, but as long as the basic principle remains (that you can attempt to repair the damage next time you vote), thats fine.

Levels of democracy (limits by "merit" and agenda or candidate availability) vary to an incredible extent among countries which on the surface look similar or even within one country.

Noocracy on the other hand proposes to find geniuses and let them loose. I am against that. Same with philosophers (that one is really funny), and technocrats (and their robots and AI).

Perfect government - humans dont need perfect day care centres. Humans need motivation to live. AI or aliens ruling us would be very depressing.

In specialised fields meritocratic peer reviewed groups work reasonably well if they are constantly renewed, and political parties can be like that for periods of time. But meritocratic peer review breaks down with political power, populism, bribery, backstabbing, nepotism and the rest of politics. Parties usually seem well organised when they are in opposition. When in government, things (people) start falling apart.

Granted there are countries where governments are democratically elected yet stable for decades and appear to be working as a meritocratic peer reviewed system. They are just lucky I guess.

Maybe if the noo tried harder they could achieve that?

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

Theoretically, science works great. However, as has already been noted, in the real world in certain fields, the pressure to publish something "substantial" combined with the inability to get grants for certain experiments because they aren't "trendy" right now causes scientists to self-limit the kinds of research they undertake, which is not at all great for increasing human knowledge.

Another problem is the "expert opinion" problem--when someone with little reputation in the field finds something that directly contradicts the "experts" in the field, they often face ridicule. The most famous recent case of this was 2011 Nobel Prize winner Dan Shechtman, who discovered a new type of crystal structure that was theoretically impossible in 1982 and was roundly criticized and ridiculed for it until a separate group of researchers many years later actually replicated his experiment and realized he had been right all along. This web page lists several more examples of scientists whose breakthrough research was ignored because it didn't match the "expert consensus" of the period.

Finally, in the humanities at least, one of the biggest problems in research that uses a quantitative approach (i.e. statistics) is that researchers apply a statistical method to their data, such a as a t-test, without actually demonstrating that whatever being studied follows a normal distribution (i.e bell curve). Many statistical tests are only accurate if what is being studied is normally distributed, yet I've seen a fair share of papers published in respected journals that apply these tests to objects of study that are quite unlikely to be normally distributed, which makes their claims of being "statistically significant" quite suspect.

There are other statistical methods (non-parametric) that you can use on data that is not normally distributed but generally speaking a test of significance on data taken from a normally distributed pool is going to be more reliable. As is noted in this video, the reason these kinds of mistakes slip through into the peer-reviewed journals is that sometimes the reviewers are not nearly as well-trained in statistical analysis as they are in other methodologies.

Cat peering into tiny cave made Payback instantly think "rattlesnake?"

Although, I have to say, my preconception was someone dragging their cats around, putting them in unwarranted danger, but those kitties are not pussies.

You are correct. However, the key point being that the right of the people to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that you should only be able to keep and bear arms while drafted into the militia, it says that you should be able to keep and bear arms.

Now, if we want to get super technical, infringement would be any type of regulation on weapons at all. Obviously we have moved to a point where we do need some regulations and we have them. We can even add more regulations, as long as there is a reasonable way to defend yourself from the regulation. The most common regulation being suggested right now is that if you are on the no-fly list, you should not be able to buy or own guns. Yet there is absolutely no way to challenge or defend your status on that list. It effectively means that the government, at their choice, can put you on a list that you have no recourse against.

If you commit a felony, and are convicted, you can no longer bear arms. That is reasonable, because you have been given due process via a jury of your peers. You can appeal the decision. You might lose, but you have options to defend yourself. If they give the same options to those people on the no-fly list, a right to a trial and options to appeal, then I wouldn't have a problem. Nobody seems interested in that though, which means anyone could be treated the same as a convicted felon with no defense, if the no-fly/no guns list regulation were passed.

I read an article the other day that points out how unscientific and flawed the original blog is. But the genie is out of the bottle, people easily believe those "everything you thought you knew is wrong" articles and this will now be treated as fact. Critical thinking can be a conversation killer but it's preferable to believing stupid shit like this.

This "scientific" study was done by randomly picking 250 pictures that people had chosen to upload on the Internet. And then based the conclusion on the fleeting looks that any camera will capture from anybody's face and body position. Hardly can be classified as a scientific study, reviewed by peers, etc. But now there are articles saying "science shows dogs don't like to be hugged".

I'm sure some dogs certainly do not like to be hugged. But my 100 pound buddy climbs up on my lap on the couch, elbow in my crotch, and demands to be hugged.

"Kaiser Permanente Encourages Plant-Based Diets

VegNews Daily
Kaiser Permanente Encourages Plant-Based Diets

By Melissa Nguyen | May 16, 2013
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

The healthcare company’s peer-reviewed medical science journal tells physicians to promote plant-based diets to patients.To address the rising cost of healthcare and skyrocketing rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, medical publication The Permanente Journal recently released an article encouraging physicians to advise patients to reduce meat, dairy, and processed food consumption and implement a plant-based diet. It points to research showing that consuming whole foods can reduce the need for medication for chronic illnesses and decrease risk of fatal ischemic heart disease, all while offering the most cost-effective prevention and low-risk medical intervention. “Healthy eating may be best achieved with a plant-based diet … Physicians should consider recommending a plant-based diet to all their patients,” the article states."

thepermanentejournal.org/issues/2013/spring/5117-nutrition.html

“It is a healthy, natural reaction for someone who witnesses the brutalities inflicted upon nonhuman animals in the agriculture industry for the first time, to ask, "how can we stop this from happening?”. The simple truth is that there remains only one answer, only one way to stop it from happening. We must end the consumption of animal-based products. Until then, nonhuman animals will always be placed in "livestock" conditions, they will always be exploited, they will always be abused and they will always be slaughtered. You cannot teach someone that a life-form has any real value when it is considered acceptable to enslave, kill and eat said being. Whilst humanity views nonhuman animals as resources, mere commodities, they will always be victims of our barbarity. There is no "humane" way to treat a slave and there certainly is no "humane" procedure to take a life.”

nutrtionfacts.org references only peer reviewed research. it is a not-for profit which gives away everything for free and has no goal other that providing accurate information. if anything, the one's who are distorting thetruth and studies are the one's who profit greatly off the suffering and death of non-human animals.

from a 6'5" 300lb pro football player:

“I can honestly say that being vegan is not only the most efficient way to be full-body strong, it’s also the most humane; everyone wins.”

the300poundvegan.com

balcom is a vegan but also a reseacher in animal behavior. the nutritionfacts.org site uses only peer reviewed articles on deit, health and nutrition.

btw, wanting to be eaten after you expire is quite different than murdering you in order to consume your corpse, which is what is done in the case of the 10 billion farmed animals who are killed every year in the USA alone.

Uh...yeah...OK. Let's remove all protein from your brain and see how that goes.
Another vegan propaganda site.
How about find a site that's not vegan propaganda, but an actual mainstream scientific site that publishes scientific studies that are peer reviewed, tested, and repeated...or can you not find any that support your position?

I DO want to be eaten when I die.
Check and mate.

you can check out one source of research here: jonathanbalcombe.com/

as far as being educated on veganism, you are sadly mistaken. you are simply repeating the myths you have been taught since childhood. if you would not wish to experience somethign yourself, it can never be considered humane. freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-ethics/factory-farming-alternative-farming/

btw, if you were educated, you would know that the brain runs on carbs and not on fats & protein. for peer reviewed research on diet and health, i would recommend http://nutritionfacts.org/

Really, what actual peer reviewed studies of brain activity during death are you quoting whey you say that? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out that you're totally buying into the myths and lies of the vegan movement rather than any actual evidence.
I hate to tell you, but I'm probably more educated about veganism than you, as I've been exposed to it for about 40 years through my aunts family, and can see it from the outside, so being part of the 'movement' doesn't cloud my perception like it does to vegans. Also, my brain doesn't suffer from a lack of proteins and fats.

Also, to comment on your other post, not all animals are factory farmed, or executed by the methods you decry. It's incredibly annoying to try to discuss this issue with people who want to portray the entire meat industry as the worst examples possible, then tell people how to act based on that misrepresentation. There's a problem with factory farming, not all animal farming is factory farming, or factory harvesting. Please make a note of it.