>> ^rottenseed:

What happened to the other version of this? I know its here because I invested 80 minutes of my time. In face I invested 80 minutes of my time twice, as it was also on Fora.tv


He has A LOT of 80+ minute talks. It may have been another one.

lol primates, we're so clever.

Seriously, didn't we leave this kind of sexism behind in the 80s?

I don't fully understand why my fellow white males get so uptight and defensive when it comes to the topic of sexism, racism and other types of prejudice. Is it some kind of misplaced guilt? Is it that we subconsciously know we have a good thing going on and don't want others rocking the boat? Is it that we don't understand the advantages white maleness has bestowed upon us and cannot empathize with those who do not have those advantages? Are we just over-sized monkeys? I really don't know.

I don't think there is anything even vaguely controversial about the points she is making here. Advertising is sleazy. It preys upon our fears and insecurities. It promotes greed and self loathing. It promotes mediocrity in film, news media, television and music. It provides financial support to the worst elements of both government and business. And, it targets men too. How many of you drones use overpriced "Axe" deodorant because your subconscious mind thinks it will get you laid.

This presentation is smart, pithy and right on target. Those who don't get it should keep watching it in a continuous loop until your consciousness evolves to a higher level, you fucking primates.

Play us out Frank: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfUB4Wv5ooI

Exactly. Welcome to the life of primates. Or is it vertebrates?

Social behavior is by definition coercion of the individual by the group.

>> ^MaxWilder:

So the real challenge to the anarcho-capitalist would be to describe a possible society in which extortion in one form or another is absent. I honestly can't think of one.

An anarchy is a power vacuum by definition. That 'armed society' stuff is fantasy from people who've seen 'Red Dawn' a few too many times. Unless Michael Bay is writing the script, an anarchist with a shotgun would stand no chance against a gang or private mercinary squad.

The state currently prevents corporations from murdering you and stealing your shit. The state gives you legal recourse if corporations cause harm. The state allows you the power to change the government. You seem to take all this for granted, like it's some kind of natural order, rather than the result of thousands of years of progress.

The human race started in anarchy, and it was ugly and violent. Over the course of history we've slowly moved forward, to the point where some take it for granted. I'm not interested in reverting the human race back to primate status.

>> ^blankfist:

I'd hardly call an armed society a power vacuum. That aside, the current statist regime has done nothing to the quell corporate hegemony increases in the past 100 years. Government is complicit in the growth of corporations, so why try to give it more legitimacy and power? That I cannot understand about your position.

The lower primates can't lock their knees. Small price to pay for being able to bench press 1000 lbs. all day.

Those are all interesting "common goods" that I would love the Right Wing to actually embody.

It is only individual freedom and responsibility, I've noticed, when it is your freedom and somebody else's responsibility. (I can provide anecdotal evidence in proof of that statement, from the lives of my super conservative relatives.)

Being fiscally responsible is a great thing -- so why the continuing huge tax cuts to the wealthy, where it has been proved over and over that those cuts will not help the economy and only drive us deeper in debt? And all that crap about death panels, when it has been proven that when folks plan for end of life issues, huge amounts of unnecessary, expensive and ultimately painful prolonging of life treatment are avoided?

Following the Constitution. You support the ACLU, right? They fight for the Constitution all the time. The Right Wing doesn't own the Constitution, it belongs to all of us. Including the checks and balances inherernt in the document.

Free markets. Huh. Well, Teddy Roosevelt was conservative, but he recognized that truly "free" markets are not in the best interests of the country. Unless you like lead paint in children's toys?

Life is lived on a curve -- with the far right and the far left holding positions that try to drag the middle around.

We're on the same curve, though.

Liberals don't disagree with your list of common goods. They just want to implement them in differing ways. For example -- individual freedom. Libs get behind that in a big way for personal choices in the bedroom. Gay marriage and the reproductive rights are individual freedoms, right? But Libs get a little torqued when someone else's individual freedom may cost innocent lives -- hence their concern over gun control.

All this is off topic, though. Tucker Carlson is a raving red baboon butt of a human being who cares nothing for a reasoned conversation when he can make a living out of his Monkey Island antics. (Primate Island, I know, that just isn't as funny.)

The fact that Jon Stewart hates him makes me very happy.



>> ^lantern53:

Which part of the 'right wing drivel' is BS?
The part about individual freedom and responsibility?
The part about fiscal responsibility?
The part about following the Constitution, which is the founding document of this country?
The part about free markets?

Ah..."Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish" -Euripides. It has been my personal experience that those who do not believe in evolution are not so much resistant to the idea as they are ignorant of it, as you said. You can explain to him that evolution is the product of math, and that's it. As one allele is favored in the environment, it increases in frequency. In fact, you could also explain that evolution may also occur through something as simple (and unarguable) as migration. If more individuals with blond hair enter a population, the population evolves because the frequency of the blond allele increases.

In regards to the age of the earth, you could discuss some geological facts that are in obvious support of an ancient earth:
1) Fossils (Previous types of organisms have existed. Extinction has occurred. We know the rate of extinction and the rate that speciation occurs - these all indicate an earth that is billions of years old)
2) Vestigial structures (Previous useful structures can lose their function through time - lots of it)
3) Modern Gemonics (The more closely related two organisms are the more similar their DNA is, the more genes they have in common and therefore the more morphologically similar they are. We know the rate of mutation, which means we know the rate of the formation of alleles in a population. For humans, the rate of mutation is about 0.0000001 mutations per base pair per generation (very slow - and this is for all mutations, not just for positive ones). The formation of new species usually takes millions of years due to this slow rate coupled with natural selection.
4) Biogeography (A single species separated by the movement of continents evolves at the same discussed rate. We know how fast continents move (theory of plate tectonics: 2 - 10 cm/year). We know many organisms were separated by continental drift (Many separate (but very similar-looking) species are found in currently separate geographical areas that were once together - primates in Africa / South America, for example or the flightless birds - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratite - for marsupials: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio303/contdrift.htm)

I hope this helps!

Marc

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
Hey, you seem to know your way around science so I have a question for you (asking several people actually):

I have a friend who is fairly intelligent and open-minded, but is also a young-earth creationist. While there is quite a bit of evidence showing the planet to be much older than 7000 years, I'm trying to find something that is fairly obvious and can't be dismissed as easily as, say, radiometric dating.

Needless to say, he doesn't "believe" in evolution, but I think many of his positions are the product of misinformation. I wouldn't believe in what he thinks evolution is either, but for now I just want a clear way of showing a skeptic that the earth is much older than the christian bible seems to indicate.

Any insight?

Okay, but let's have data.

I have about five cigars a year. I know it's harmful... and in some sense, it's completely disgusting of me to take risks with my life and health just for the sake of some cigars. But I'm more worried about the pollution in the city I live in, the fumes from vehicles and the cavalcade of chemicals that we ingest every day from our environment and food.

I'm just a stupid primate with an interminable need to put things in my mouth.

The reporting has it's own "pro-religion" spin... just in the way its toned.

- The fact it's pitched as a quirky "You won't believe this" surpising discovery. To any non-creationist, surely this is what you'd expect rather than a surprise.

- (1.27) "Poses a provocative question" Like he's a heretic to argue against. It's not provocative and it's not a question. It's tested evidence. Evidence is evidence - it's not up for opinion.
- (1.47) "If there is no god..." Immediately hostile christain combative phrasing.
- (1:57) "that humans, like primates..." Humans are primates. Unless you're a creationist.
- (2:15) "ONE biologist..." clearly pointing out this is just one guys opinion to be discounted. Rather than the common theory of most social behavioural scientists who are not creationists.

I read his book, Primates and Philosophers:
How Morality Evolved, about a year ago and found it quite convincing.

^Yeah, very unimpressive. All that work to catch 1 monkey? That's not even enough for breakfast. I could probably have caught 3 of those monkeys all by myself. We should open a hunting school for chimps and teach these primates how it's done.

>> ^ant:

But humans don't eat each other in wars.
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> raverman said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/r/raverman-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">"give peace a chance"
Sorry, can't. Biological Primate Imperative.
</div></div></div>

Yes they do. But maybe you're being sarcastic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Cannibalism.

>> ^raverman:

"give peace a chance"
Sorry, can't. Biological Primate Imperative.


But humans don't eat each other in wars.

"give peace a chance"

Sorry, can't. Biological Primate Imperative.