Or being born in a hospital in a sane country.

The only reason circumcision is common in america is because of some wack job puritan superstitions in the mid 20th century.

Frankly, it's a fucking disgrace that it is not only acceptable, but actually encouraged to surgically mutilate your child's genitals.

If you're an informed adult and you want to hack at your penis for whatever reason, go nuts. But doing it to kids is nothing short of violation.

That's not what I was saying at all though perhaps I explained poorly.

So imagine you are in a 0 gravity environment. You have 2 balls (lol) one has a mass of 1 kg the other a mass of 100kg. You throw both equally hard. What happens?

One ball travels away from you at 100x less the velocity of the other. This is intertia, it is an effect of mass not gravity. Gravity is an additional force but it's absence would not change the fact that a big heavy space suit requires a significant force to move at a usefully velocity in the 1st place.

It was perhaps misleading to use the example of a fulcrum (lever) but in this context it's quite illustrative. If it was 0 gravity you could apply a tiny force to a massive object and just wait however long it takes to get it where you want (like an infinitely long lever). When gravity becomes a factor duration becomes more and more of a concern (like the fulcrum of the lever gets shorter and shorter).

Concequence: the lower the gravity the easier (less work/deltaV) it is to move an object. However a massive object still requires a proportional large force to move in a useful way (in this case fast enough to overcome 0.16g for long enough to get upright).

I'm not saying gravity has no effect (quite the opposite) I'm saying big heavy thing requires big heavy force to shift even in reduced gravity environments.


As for bases on the moon, mars, stargates, ueo's, void whales, phobos being hollow (phobos is some crazy shit), hexagon on Saturn etc. Etc. I'm not outright dismissive, but to treat it as anything but food for thought/entertainment is a little worrying to say the least. What do you have to go on there other than the testimony of other people who claim to have been involved or whatever?

There's no hard data avaliable to the likes of you and I on such things. Many of these ideas cannot be entirely refuted, but nor can they be confirmed either. That puts us squarely in the realm of superstition and religion.

I'm a part time discordian/khaos magus/git wizard so I do have more time than most for superstition and flights of fantasy but I steer well clear of treating any of that kind of think as objective fact.

The realms of materialism and idealism should stay entirely separate except when they converge and compliment each other e.g. If I can imagine a black swan and then go out and find one (after performing the necessary experiments to disprove any other possible explanations for why it might seem black) then I can tell others that black swans are definitely a real thing. The same cannot be said for say the flying spaghetti monster or the chocolate tea pot orbiting the sun even though believing in such things makes my life more interesting under certain circumstances (and such liberated thought processes can eventually lead to as yet undiscovered ideas which may indeed prove to be "true" or helpful).

"Given all theories of the universe are absurd, it is better to speak in the language of one which Is patently absurd so as to mortify the metaphysical man." -Alaistair Crowley

Translation: if your going to indulge stuff like this don't take it or yourself too seriously or you will go mental!

Praise be to pope Bob!
23

His Darwin/Wallace descriptions is rather unfair on Darwin, Darwin had been working for 20 years on what became "The Origin of Species" when he received Wallace's letter, He already had his theory of natural selection worked out, he just hadn't actually published yet. This is a pretty well known historical fact, based on extensive documentation(Darwins notes/letter etc, see http://darwin-online.org.uk/ .

Also the jump to "nazi Germany" is complete bullshit. If natural selection looks like any political system it would have to be unregulated capitalism or total anarchy. Both of which might turn out to be very bad, but why should you base a political system on natural selection anyway? He confuses Darwinism with "social Darwinism" which really has nothing to do with Darwin or his theory. At best, it was a complete misreading of the theory, confusing strength/looks/class with fitness and using it as an excuse to sterilize and or kill the "unwanted" and "weak". But even social darwinism really had nothing to do with "nazi germany", As the extermination of the jews were largely based on religiously inspired resentments and superstitions, combined with an exploitation of the frustrated german people, looking to place the blame for their post WW1 plight.

Seems like this guy also misunderstands why Darwin/Wallace is credited with "discovering evolution". Its correct that they didnt, but neither did Lamarck, really, as it was obvious for some time that animals seemed to have looked differently in the past, and that something had changed over time. What Darwin and Wallace discovered was the mechanism: How evolution actually works, why it works, and so on. Lamarck also presented a mechanism (inheritance of acquired traits), but it turned out to be wrong.

@A10anis
while i do truly appreciate your change of tone,you fail to address that your original comment was smug and condescending.
which is what i was addressing.

and the word "ALL" is most certainly a blanket statement.

there are 4500 known religions (many defunct at present).
so maybe you can understand why i criticized your commentary as being overly generalized.

and i would also like to clarify a few things.
1.i find you to be an intelligent and insightful sifter.which is why i called you out.NOT to be an ass or to be confrontational but rather because i think you are a person who is better than your original comment.there are many i wouldnt have wasted my time on.

2.i am not a huge fan of organized religion.i have some serious issues with those highly influential institutions.

3.i actually agree with your basic premise:religion is control by use of fear.
so my issue with your original comment was not your basic premise but in its delivery.

4.dont be too quick to judge ALL religions solely based on doctrine and dogma.at its core religions are just human kind trying to make sense of reality and their place in it.religion is the beginnings of philosophy,and while it can be steeped in superstition and magic thinking,it has also offered some incredibly profound insights and understandings.
socrates,aristotle,plato..these were the beginnings of secular philosophy but before that? it was religion that tackled the big questions.

5.you really should watch the video.the book of enoch is...well..a bizarre apocryphal book.

anyways.i always enjoy your commentary and i hope you take my response with the humanity it was intended.

@lantern53, basically what @enoch said.

EDIT: Warning.... very long post ahead... I'm sure there will be many TLDRs.

Let me be clear. I have no objection to businesses making a profit, or the people who run and operate those businesses to make more income than their workers... where I have a problem is when a bushiness fires 350 people, then tells the rest of the employees the company can't afford to give them raises then the owner goes out and buys a jet on the companies dime, the next year he fired 250+ people, and last year 450+ people, and no raises to anyone but the executives all those years, because the company couldn't afford it. How many jobs did that jet cost? Apparently 1,000 jobs so far, and many more who've made minimum wage for 4 years now so that one man can have a jet? Unrepentant greed is my issue. Where I have a problem is where the 6 Walmart heirs have a net worth over the bottom 30 some percent of the American population, meanwhile they pay their workers minimum wage and give few benefits... All of that would be somewhat acceptable, but for the fact that those on the right get mad at those 1,000 people that guy fired to have his jet for having lost their jobs, they are mad at the employees still there and working jobs like Walmart, Target, McDonalds and the like for not being paid a living wage. People on the right are mad at the people stuck at the bottom rather than saying those at the top should be held mildly accountable. It's like that cartoon where a rich guy, a middle class guy and a low wage worker are all at a table with 100 cookies, the rich guy takes 99 of them, the middle class guy gets 1, and the rich guy points to the poor guy with crumbs and warns the middle class guy that the poor guy wants his cookie... and rather than be mad at the rich guy for taking everything from everyone, the middle class guy (read those on the right, or at least those who vote that way, as those in control know what's going on) gets upset at the poor guy who was left with crumbs. The right are angry at the victim rather than the person doing the crime.

And like Enoch pointed out, it isn't Democrat vs Republican. They are very much the same, especially nowadays. The ideological differences are greatly exaggerated by the media... [And no, there isn't a "liberal media", at least not mainstream. Over 90% of the news is controlled by like 6 companies, none of whom have an interest in making American's aware of just how big the wealth distribution divide is, how fast it's growing, how the income gap is growing at an alarming rate... The fact that if minimum wage kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be over $10.50 by now, and if it kept pace with worker productivity it would be over $21.72 and a bit higher (I can't find the exact figure at the moment, but it was around $24) if it kept pace with executive/CEO pay... but I'm getting way off topic.] The truth is, they are far more alike then the media makes it out to be, especially right wing media. The reason it seems so vast is because that drives ratings, making people angry and distracted. Making mountains out of molehills, keeping people up with the Kardashians, Honey Boo Boo, Miley Cyrus, and other people that don't matter rather than focusing on the stuff that matters... rather than just report the news, they now feed you how to think about it (especially used by those on the right when they go "if you really think about it" then make some logical leap that isn't there, but makes their listeners/viewers think they are being smarter than they are... mainstream media does the same though, so...)

I am ultimately an anarchist. I'd love to see an end to government, but until such point that humanity can grow up, get past the evils of greed, lack of education, lack of empathy, and superstitions, then government is a necessary force to maintain those with greedy motives that want to take advantage of those lacking education, who are superstitious. We need a government of people of empathy who can understand those people, and help those people free themselves of the greedy elite are are pulling way too many strings... sadly they are using government to do so, but that is the thing about democracy, representative or not, we can change the outcome, we can make things better for all, not just a select few.

I get it. I used to be a hardcore Republican. I used to hate the poor, and thought that "teach a man to fish" type stuff, and thought the best way to help them was to kick them in the water and let them sink or swim essentially, some may drown, but many would swim and rise above it all. Then I started to have issues with how the Republican party wanted to control what people did on their own, that wasn't hurting anyone else, and I became a hardcore Libertarian, still belittling the poor (funny as I was poor myself). I stopped watching and defending Fox and Rush and the like, but I held to the Libertarian ideals of free markets being the best solution. Then as I studied God's Word, I started having issues with how the Republican right and Libertarians were sort of contrary to His teachings that I already commented on in my earlier post. At the same time I was learning critical thinking to analyze not just what was said, but who's saying it, and vetting their sources, and I started to see that not only did it conflict with my faith, it conflicted with logic, at least with how man is now... that critical thinking would soon be applied to faith as well, already shaken by the fact that so many people were clearly voting for a party that proclaimed Christianity but was so vastly opposed to the teaching of Christ I had to ask why wasn't God screaming at His people that they were wrong (some liberal Christians would agree that perhaps God was saying something, but making sure the right lost the Presidency, as God is in control, and appoints all leaders, but I was too far off faith by that point). I came to question other aspects of faith, and eventually lost it fully. [I think the Christian Right has been taken over by Christian Reconstructionist who don't admit they are Reconstructionist or even Calvinist, but they clearly are. They try to slightly distance themselves from Rousas John Rushdoony and his ilk, but they are all the same, and they will turn more and more people off Christianity than anything else in this world... save perhaps education and learning to think critically... and ultimately is the true power behind the Tea Party movement... Reconstructionist mixed with a healthy dose of Millennialism...] Anyhow, again getting way off topic, I get it, I was there once myself. I have an old account here on the Sift (I could never resurrect as Hotmail kept losing the password reset requests) where I defended Fox News, where I said something stupid and ignorant about evolution... heck, one look at the old political or religious posts on my blog (personal blog, not a videosift blog) and one would see how far to the right I used to be. I learned though that everyone is closer to one another than the media and politicians and the elite that are pulling the strings would have you believe.

When I was in elementary school, science class included making fun of "old wives tales" as emblematic of superstition.

There was an "old wives tale" that moldy bread could cure a fever.

If only those early scientists had been more curious and less dismissive, we might have had penicillin much much sooner.

Of course, then we would have had penicillin resistant bugs much sooner, too...

*related=http://videosift.com/video/QI-The-Superstition-of-Pigeons

QualiaSoup - Superstition has been added as a related post - related requested by messenger on that post.

QI - The Superstition of Pigeons has been added as a related post - related requested by messenger.

Ya, thanks squirrel. Thanks for bringing me down! I liked the idea of aliens puttering around on the earth , making stuff, whimsical, neat stuff, that was very easy for them to do. Now I know, it was just us , making slaves build dumbass superstitous stuff. Not cool.

I agree that religion has a business side (what doesn't?) but it has also preserved civilizations for thousands of years.

If there is such a thing as Enlightened Atheism, it can make light of superstition but also recognize religion's historical importance to the survival of the State, and by proxy, the indivdual.

And the last 2 minutes of this is Comedy RHODIUM.


>> ^criticalthud:

Religion, at it core, is the most successful business model in the history of humankind.

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

>> ^bobknight33:

Your comments make your a bigot.
liberals claim to be open minded and let everyone under the tent. I guess you only let those in if they agree with you.
You only open minded if I agree with you.
Not only are you a bigot you are also a hypocrite.

>> ^VoodooV:
Poor @bobknight33
Do you have a learning disorder, memory problem or both?
1. I very clearly stated that being a bigot in the privacy of your own home and in your own head is perfectly fine. Just that when it comes to public policy, your religious views have no place. Did you just fail to read that or did you choose to ignore it?
2. You made the argument questioning the number of homosexuals in America. Again, you failed to comprehend or you chose to ignore it when I said that the number of homosexuals in America, or the world is irrelevant and they are deserving of the same inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as you are.
Thirdly, there is this wonderful thing called a post history. You may not have said anything explicit in this sift about homosexuals (debatable), but thanks to your post history we know PRECISELY how you feel about homosexuals, blacks and other minorities. You're a coward bob, but you can't run away from your own documented words.



Ahh the "I know you are but what am I?" defense. Tell me bob, what is open minded about thinking homosexuals should be corralled into concentration camps? Please...enlighten me. Explain to me how homosexuality is wrong without using the bible and "it's gross" and "slippery slope to bestiality" Show me a glimmer of rational thought. Reason and logic beat myths and superstition every time.

You have a right to your opinion, but you're not safe from being criticized when your shit just doesn't pass muster. All opinions are not equally valid and shitty ideas have a way of being tossed aside

If you wanted an echo chamber, you're in the wrong place, bob.

Damn, I was hoping to be the first one to comment meaningfully about this subject: seems I came up short (zing!).

I am circumcised. My lady friend and I (who have been together more than five years) have discussed at length (oh! I'm too good) whether I would want a son of mine to be cut as well, so I have mulled this over quite a bit.

Being a nonsuperstitious man (read: nontheist), the only consideration on side of cutting my offspring is that moment in the shower when he is two years old and he asks, "Daddy, why are you different?" (Heading off those who do not yet have children in the close family, I should say that bathing at such a young age with the older crew is not uncommon no matter what your culture.) For a son to see that he is truly, physically different from his old man is probably quite a shock.

Here is the bottom line: I have ZERO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER telling my son that I was cut because of a superstition; that my penis looks the way it does because of a superstitious bond between my parents and their imaginary friend. I am in fact quite excited to tell my young man that there was a time when this kind of thing was necessary so that people could feel closer to whatever it was they thought made the universe. I am excited because it will engender in him the same cynicism that took me more than a decade to discover.

My own father was born and raised Catholic and went to Jesuit schools from pre-K to law school. As Jesus-loving and God-fearing as he was on the surface, he made sure to let me know the barbarism is barbarism. To imagine that genital mutilation is part of a legitimate religious commitment is so far out of whack with current legal and cultural norms. Fuck circumcision and all its superstitious implications.

(I'm just 6 minutes too late to submit this one!)

Found this on Dangerous Minds:

Why is someone as blinkered as Michelle Leonhart serving as a top DEA administrator? Her opinion about marijuana being as dangerous as other illegal drugs like heroin, crack, or meth hardly rises to the level of superstition let alone any kind of objective science.

This dumbass obviously has no idea what she is talking about. This is an infuriating display of complete idiocy and willful ignorance. Or else she’s just lying and stonewalling with the DEA party line, of course, but the “deer in the headlights” uncomprehending look on her face as she’s being grilled probably indicates that she’s being sincere. And stupid. Via The Raw Story:

During a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele Leonhart repeatedly refused to admit that anything was more addictive or harmful than marijuana.

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado pressed Leonhart on whether illegal drugs like methamphetamine and crack, as well as legal prescription drugs, caused greater harm to public health compared to marijuana. But within a three minute time-span, Leonhart dodged his questions eleven times.

“Is crack worse for a person than marijuana?” Polis, who has called for an end to marijuana prohibition, asked.

“I believe all illegal drugs are bad,” Leonhart responded.

“Is methamphetamine worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?” Polis continued. “Is heroin worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?”

“Again, all drugs,” Leonhart began to say, only to be cut off by Polis.

“Yes, no, or I don’t know?” Polis said. “If you don’t know this, you can look this up. As the chief administrator for the Drug Enforcement Agency, I’m asking a very straightforward question.”


If Leonhart REALLY doesn’t know the difference between pot and crack and their respective effects on the human body, as her answers would seem to indicate, may I suggest she actually TRY the drugs that she has no idea about and form a sensible opinion? Or maybe check in with some longtime pot smokers and some longtime crack heads or toothless meth addicts so she can see the difference? Or would that just be too easy? (31 years of daily pot smoking for me, I’ll meet with Leonhart happily and even subject myself to medical testing. I am a definitive study of one, trust me.)

Public opinion should force people like Leonhart out of their jobs where they have too much control over the lives of others. She was appointed by Bush and re-appointed by Obama in 2010. She’s an embarrassment to both administrations. A buffoon. An ignoramous. There wasn’t a person in the room—even the Republicans—who was impressed by this woman’s astonishing lack of expertise (and therefore NOTABLE lack of qualifications for her position). How could anyone be impressed by her performance on Capital Hill? She should be fired immediately.

“Is heroin worse for someone’s health than marijuana?” It’s not a trick question! The answer is YES, for fuck’s sake. The average senior citizen has a more enlightened approach than this DEA clownjob. WHAT are this woman’s qualifications for her job, anyway? A pulse?

Bring the goddamn drug laws into the 21st century, PLEASE. This is just getting to be so fucking stupid.

Kudos to Rep Jared Polis of Colorado for so doggedly exposing this nonsense. We need more like him in Congress.