Twins aren't genetically identical, even at birth. They begin separating from each other genetically when the zygote splits. Environmental factors determine how genes are expressed, and those factors are not identical. That makes twin studies a piss poor method of gene study. All it can tell you is how much the environment might effect their expression over time, and they aren't very good at even that.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/

Now that genetic testing is cheap, we're finding out most identical twins aren't identical at all. Proper gene testing doesn't assume twins are identical clones for life, it actually disproved that hypothesis. The space study with twins showed that in under a year their genes permanently diverged a full 7% (with a larger temporary change initially that lowered as they returned to similar environments).
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-twins-study-confirms-preliminary-findings


I feel that people often misuse mistaken assumptions to validate their prejudices. If the science isn't clear and validated, using it against others is improper in the extreme.

Discriminating against people for their legal, culturally accepted, natural behavior makes the person doing the discriminating an asshole. Homosexuality is quite present in nature, is now culturally accepted in western cultures, and is legal. Tolerance is a learned behavior I wish was taught better, especially by churches.

Your video, New Rule: Snide and Prejudice, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The point
Your head

And I don't believe for a moment that you really are missing the point.

The victim in the video made a tweet that sounds racist, but was meant in a sarcastic manner to be making fun of the stupid things racists say.

Your own comment you've made before is the same thing, saying profiting of racism is AOK, in a sarcastic way to be making fun of the stupid things racists do:
Once you learn to profit from racism then BS like this doesn't bother you. In fact you begin to appreciate all the hard free labor that keeps the dividends flowing

You weren't really advocating for enjoying the free labor and profits of racism, you were making fun of it. The victim you are so quick to run a bus over and see ruined made the same joke as you did, but you still fail to see any irony or double standard in this.

And 1 sentence to refute your off-topic rant. Apparently newtboy and I differ from you in believing the historic racism and prejudices were BAD and should be ended rather than recycled against a new range of victims.

Dunno.

I think of Megan Phelps-Roper, once prominent member of WBC, now "reformed". She was the sort of "Social Media Manager" for the WBC. She used twitter to further spread their message but, ofc, the world of twitter stares also into you. She began to engage in a sort of dialogue with those that responded to her hate filled tweets and over time the WBC grip on her was chipped away. In the end I think she actually married one of those that engaged with her on twitter. Cool Story. Bro.

Anyhoo. So it can be done but it doesn't happen on the picket line or in protests. I mean, with some of these people you can't even agree on the definition of "human"... I really strongly doubt the value of allowing such groups to have a voice for the sake of having an opportunity to denounce (ostracise?) them further. It takes carefully considered, long term, personal debate.

My feeling is that his is happening not because we have suppressed such ideas for too long and now they are boiling over...they are boiling over because where once discontented individuals were alone with their prejudices and fears now they can find in minutes a group online to agree with. The suppression of these fringe ideologies wasn't the cause, the cause is that the internet seems to have rendered such suppression ineffectual. How we now challenge these festering online dens I'm not sure...

Also, and I hate to go all reducto ad hitlerum here but if there was ever a time, discussing neo-nazis must surely be it.... Hitler spoke and spoke and spoke and his bad ideas didn't fall into the shitter fast enough to save the lives of all the millions of Jews and those that fought against them.

For me the interesting bit is in how they were mostly desparate to not be controversial and just finish the movie, but keep the issues that mattered to them and the humour intact.

They gradually came to the conclusion that Jesus and his teachings are not actually that funny by themselves, that christianity, unless interpreted by idiots, is not a wothy subject to being mocked. Which I can identify with and most christians could, if they saw the movie without prejudice.

Of course bigots will project all kinds of personal complexes and hysterical interpretations.

St. George of Harrison FTW.

"Unaware they were required to testify honestly during prior court appearances for the death penalty case"....sweet zombie Jesus...they are so dumb they actually SAID that?!?
Another prime example of why I can't serve on a jury. When asked about prejudice, I always admit I'm prejudiced against cops because they are trained to lie in their duties, and I don't trust trained liars to ever tell the truth.
This case proves that point quite well.
If only I were dishonest like them I could serve on juries and never convict based on police supplied testimony or evidence...but I'm not.

@bobknight33
unsure if you are gloating that you uncovered some deep,dark secret,and are exposing some political conspiracy.

or are just re-iterating what i already posted.

for years i have seen you promote and tout the validity and necessity of the tea party for those who may be disgruntled with the mainstream republican party.

a party that started with modest means,but is now funded by some of the most wealthy and influential political players in our country:the koch bothers.

they even changed their name to the freedom caucus.
and they nominate candidates,and come out to support them.

so how is the tea party,which broke away from the establishment republicans to promote a politics that is more in line with the constitution,ANY different from the people who are sick and tired of corporate,establishment democrats? who ALSO have decided that enough is enough and have banded together to nominate their own candidates,and support those candidates to represent THEIR politics and ideological philosophies.

how,exactly,is that different?

because while you may disagree with justice democrats politically,and i suspect you do,you should also be proud that they are taking a stand and sticking up for their beliefs.

are you SO unaware of your own bias,prejudice and hyper-partisanship as to not recognize when a group of people are doing the EXACT same thing as your tea party did?

be careful bob,your bias and hypocrisy are showing.
and you are becoming a partisan hack,attacking any and everything that is contrary to your own politics,even when in reality it is performing the very same thing that you state to admire.

so what is more important to you?
honesty,integrity and sticking to your moral values?
or political affilliations?

because i can disagree with someones politics,and still admire and respect them standing up for their values.(that includes you bob).

i gather this is something you are incapable of doing,because in bob's world"politics trumps everything else,end of discussion.

if you want to sully your eyes a bit,check out what the justice democrats are seeking to do,and what their base philosophy is:
https://justicedemocrats.com/platform

*promote
*quality

ok,that is not fair,i adore that piece from the oatmeal but it really does not apply to this current discussion.

at least in my case,and my commentary.(i do not want to speak for anybody else).

i simply was using the very same metric prager was using to make HIS point,and turned it upon itself,because his logic is obviously biased,and flawed.i was using HIS parameters to come to a different conclusion.

i am not coming from ideological standpoint.i was simply pointing out the flaw in his logic.my own,personal biases and prejudices,have nothing to do with my conclusions.

so what exactly is unbelievable?

that people pointed out that his argument is weak,facile and totally without merit? do you think this is due to some partisan bias? some emotional adherence to an economic or political system?

or maybe his conflation of a socio-economic political system and murderous,despotic tyrants was an incredibly weak tactic to make the argument that communism was "evil".

now you are free to believe whatever you wish,and maybe you think that communism is actually "evil",but if that is the case,then i would suggest that you do not utilize the tactic prager uses in this video,because HIS argument is incredibly weak and flawed,and easily de-bunked.

personal biases and predjudices have nothing to do with this mans shitty argument.

and no offense mate,but countering that people disagreeing with this video is somehow due their own partisan,political philosophy,is just as weak as pragers shitty argument.

prager made a shitty argument,based on extremely flawed logic,in order to push his own biased agenda.we exposed that flaw,plain and simple.

political affiliation had nothing to do with it.

I thought it was very rational, with fact-based evidence and was in no way "drivel". If you honestly cant see past your own prejudices, then that's on you mate.

this could not have come at a more perfect time.this week i have been accused of being a:racist,misogynist pig,cis gendered white privileged meat sack,republican tool,trump supporter(seriously?),christian nutter...the list has been long.

all because i had the audacity to point out that:obama is not a progressive,trump has actually attempted to some decent things,the ANTIFA movement is an ill-thought and hypocritical movement,the DNC is a corrupt and failing institution,the left is dead politically in america,the democratic party is one election away from being left in obscurity and that both trump and obama should be tried for war crimes.

i was seriously struggling why people refused to examine or scrutinize their own beloved political figure,but had no issue ridiculing the most inane activities of the person they hate.

i had sincerely asked how a morally justified movement could even fathom that fighting oppression and fascism,with oppression and fascism could ever be considered a solid and positive tactic.

i had people i admired and respected perform mental gymnastics so impressive that they were truly convinced that obama not indicting a single wall street CEO,was not obama bowing to the financial industry,but rather supporting his constituency.

and the presumption of some of these people,basing their opinions on so little,was staggering.even when i attempted to clarify that their assumptions were wrong,and that i was simply asking for the reasons why someone would ignore the mountain of damning evidence.they held on to their assumptions like a small child with a candy bar...

i am pretty thick skinned,and do not take much personally,but many of these people are people i like,admire and respect.that is a bitter pill that is far harder to swallow.

so thanks for that mate,it really put things in perspective for me.time for me to just go do my thing and not get hung up on other peoples biases and prejudices.they can think what they want,i will not let their narrow mindedness dictate how i feel.

that is their deal.

This was obviously made by someone that's never worked with drug addicts, and has a idealistic view on the issue.

Normally when you aren't familiar with a certain demographic it's easy to judge and be dismissive of their issues. But once you get to know them and their struggles, you become more sympathetic, and you start seeing them as individuals. You find you have quite a lot in-common, and your prejudices are dropped.

Well for drug addicts (and alcoholics to an extent), it's the complete opposite.

when radical right wingers,who lean towards an authoritarian,dogmatic way of approaching certain subjects,yet will attempt to disguise their bigotry,prejudice or hatred under the banner of "free speech",or nationalistic pride" and even sometimes "common sense" (because in THEIR world view,thats what it is to them:common sense).

they receive pushback,and rightly so,because you have to allow them to express their ideas in a public forum for the diseased and twisted philosophy to be exposed for the shit ideas they were in the first place.

but if you disagree with their philosophical viewpoint,and deal with that disagreement by shouting them down,calling them horrendous names,disrupt their chance to express those ideas you disagree with,and in some cases..engage in violence..you lose the moral high ground,and whatever solid argument you had to either destroy,or at least reveal their position for the shit idea you think it may be.will be automatically dismissed by those looking from the outside in.

because you have engaged in tactics that lessen what could have been an extremely important point by becoming the very thing you state you oppose.

you do not fight authoritarian fascism.....with authoritarian,and sometimes violent...fascism.it does not work,in fact the only thing it does it weaken your position and make you look like the very thing you are opposing.

in the free market of ideas,philosophies,ideas,viewpoints,political positions all need to be openly aired in this market to be either accepted as 'good' and "worthwhile" or "of substantial consideration",or be rejected for the shit ideas they are,but they need to be openly spoken and/or written in order for people to even consider those ideas.

when you shut down any and all opportunities for a person to even SPEAK about these ideas,and using tactics that can only be considered "bullying' and "shaming".you shut own any and all conversation without the idea itself being challenged,and BOTH sides go to their respective corners still convinced of their own "righteousness",and nothing was actually addressed.

both the ultra left and the ultra right are guilty of this tactic,and in the end we all lose,but especially those players in their particular realm of ideologies.

because now they can sit happily and contentedly in their own little,tiny echo chamber bubble with their other,like-minded people,and congratulate themselves on their own righteousness.even though they were the ones who shut down all challenge,all criticism and all scrutiny.

if your ideas,and/or philosophies cannot withstand a modicum of scrutiny or criticism,then maybe those ideas were shit to begin with.

so shouting someone down,and being so disruptive as to make it impossible for that person to even begin to articulate their position,is not a "win".you did not strike a blow for equality or justice,because you pulled a fire alarm,or violently attacked a person you disagreed with.

you lost your moral high ground,and anybody who may have been on the fence,or was simply curious and wanted to hear a differing opinion.saw how you behaved when your ideas were challenged,and they outright dismissed you and your cause.

the only people you have left in your circle are the very same people who agree with you already.so enjoy the circle jerk of the self-righteous,but do not delude yourself for one second that you are "right",or have struck a blow for "justice" and "fairness".

i have been accused of being "anti-sjw", a 'closet bigot" and (this is my favorite) 'a cis-gender white privileged oppressor".

as if the goals i seek are not dissimilar as everybody elses:equality,fairness and justice.

but when i point out the wrong headed tactics of attacking innocent people just trying to listen to a persons opinions,which may possibly be:racist,bigoted and antithetical to a fair and just society.that is when i am attacked,and it is done so with the most arrogant of presumptions,with little or no evidence to back up their personal attacks upon me.

because i had the audacity to question the tactics of the protesters,and defended that speakers right to free speech.

you are free to express whatever little thought pops into your pretty little head,and i have the right ridicule you relentlessly.you are free to espouse your opinions and philisophical ideologies,but you are NOT free from offense.

because,ultimately,in the free market of ideas,if your ideas are shit.someone WILL call you out on them,and if you think the tactic of shouting people down,disrupting their lecture and/or attacking the attendees somehow makes you "right" or your cause "morally justified".it does not.it just makes you look exactly like the people you are disagreeing with,and not for nothing..it kinda make you look fucking stupid.

so let those people talk.
let them make their ill-thought arguments.
allow them to spew rhetoric and propaganda,and do what should be done in a free market of ideas.

destroy their argument,with logic,reason and a sense of fairness and justice that appeals to the majority of us.

and i mean,come on,let's be honest.there are certain portions of the population that are true believers.you are not going to change their minds but for those who are NOT fundamentalist,dogmatic thinkers,use your brains,talk to them,destroy those who propose ill-thought and bullshit arguments to reveal them for the sychophants they are.

don't be attacking them.
do not engage in violence,or disruptive behavior.
because then you lose any credibility before you have even begun.

that's my .02 anyways,take it for what it is worth.

@iaui
i do not understand you defense of corporate media pundits,who most certainly failed to recognize the actual political climate of this country.

i am not saying EVERY pundit got it wrong.there were internet political shows that did address the rise of populism,and the reasons behind it,and that trump was a valid threat and not to be dismissed.

but for the most part,corporate media pundits all echoed each others sentiments in regards to this last election cycle.

there is a REASON why bernie sanders populist language resonated with the public,and many of those people were republicans.

there is a REASON why trumps populist language,which was vastly different than sanders,resonated with another sector of the population,and not all of those people were racist,sexist,misogynist homophobes.

and none of those REASONS were addressed by corporate media pundits.they preferred to talk about trumps bombastic speeches,his racism and sexism...total cult of celebrity,because it SOLD,it made them MONEY.

it is those very same corporate media pundits that actually facilitated the rise of donald trump,and his actual presidency,because they simply did not get the current political climate here in america.which is exactly what this video is addressing,that these highly paid,and richly rewarded,pundit class reside in their own tiny,little echo chambers,that happens to reside in close proximity to the very people they have been assigned to watch,criticize and report on.

they failed on an epic scale,and it is no surprise that the majority of americans have abandoned corporate media as if it had herpes,covered in aids.

and to make the argument that this video is suspect SIMPLY because bob posted it,is intellectually dishonest,because it does NOT address the video.i disagree with bob on pretty much everything,but to ignore or disregard this video based solely on the fact that you,or i,disagree with bob politically is just incredibly weak.

now if you wish to defend corporate media political pundits,and opinion makers,and have strong case where this video is wrong in regards to how the pundit class have failed,live in a bubble,and did not understand the underlying frustration and anger boiling underneath americas working class.i am all ears,because in my opinion they have utterly failed the american people.

and i am not dismissing your polling numbers,i am just saying they are not as relevant as you are making them out to be.polls can be manipulated to mean anything you want them to mean,and in my opinion are not a strong basis to formulate an argument to defend corporate media.

but i suspect your argument is more against bob than the video,and your skepticism is based solely on your disagreement with bob politically.not un-warranted i admit,bob has posted some extremely slanted videos,but so haven't we all in our own way.

but in this case?
this video is spot on,even though bob is the one who posted.

do not let your bob bias and prejudice cloud your judgment.

Don't most of you know that Christians are required to murder you if you don't worship properly, or try to leave Christianity?

How about Deuteronomy 17:
Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Or Deuteronomy 13:
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.
Or Numbers 31, where God commands the Israelites to attack Midian and kill all the men, all the married women and all the male children but to keep the virgin females as the spoils of war and distribute them among the soldiers. The reason offered for that barbarism? Two Midianite women had allegedly “tempted” two Israelite men to worship other gods.

Christians consistently ignore the inconvenient parts unless they work to further their current prejudices. I've never heard of a Red Lobster or Gap being firebombed for selling shellfish or mixed fabrics, but gays..stone em, burn em, bomb em, and stone them some more over the same instructions they otherwise ignore. Mowing your lawn on Sunday is actually worse than homosexuality by my reading, but no one gets harassed for that.

I agree, our culture is barbaric, and getting more so. We're already discarding our culture's core pillar, that citizens have the right to believe in any religion they want....or none. I fully expect atheists to be the next targeted group, we're easy, a small (by comparison) group with little political power, and we're distrusted by the right, but not supported fully by the left, and we're an acceptable target for ridicule and distrust by almost all religious people. I ain't goin to no camp.

We (Americans) hold our prejudice tightly, and are worried about anyone different from ourselves, seemingly ignorant of the fact that we are (almost) al immigrants, and that our nation is built on the idea that different cultures together are stronger than any one.
We let Irish in while the IRA called for death to Brittan and tried to give it to them, without any extra vetting. What's different about these people....hmmmm? A different culture that, in your words, is barbaric? I guess you have an incredibly short memory, because until the mid 90's, terroristic barbarism was mostly reserved for Christians, yet no one suggested halting Christian immigration or extra vetting. Historically, Christian culture is far more barbaric and anti-intellectual.