If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence?

Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?

You should read your own links.

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution".

And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power.

Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

It may be that in the future that someone disproves evolution. But if they do, it will be through science, not creationist bollocks.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

I also don't study astrology, homeopathy, tarot cards, voodoo or crystal therapy because they are all long since proven to be complete bollocks.

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

@newtboy
whoa whoa scooter..slow yer roll.
i lived in lauderdale and there aint NOTHING conservative about that joint.huge gay community AND a huge new york jewish community.
so yeah..liberal.

and rich.im not talking "kinda rich" im talking 'lets pull our 5 story yacht to have dinner on an over-priced intercoastal posh eatery" (which i worked at quite a few).

so i dont know what set you off,when i am speaking from actual experience.
was it the word "liberal"?
ok..let me rephrase...
obscenely rich liberals who dont want to actually SEE poor,homeless people.
they want them..you know..over there------------>
the whole "not in my back yard" thing.

yes..they donate handsomely.
yes..they gift furniture and other essentials.
yes..they help sponsor food drives (but over there------->)

so im not saying they are bad people.
i am saying they are hypocrites.
because THEY are the most vocal in local government,and while they may be generous in their charities they are also the ones who push to get those icky,unshowered homeless people out of plain sight.

cuz homeless people are icky.
what would their vacationing austrian family think???

and since tourism is the MAIN source of income in the lauderdale/boca/west palm area,the local government does what it does best.

criminalize the poor.

so it wasnt a case of "starve the poor".
it was a case of "hey,we see poor people..and in PUBLIC"

the horror......
poor people...
in public...
they must need therapy now.

i live on the west coast now (and not the cool naples west coast) and yes..this bunch of dimwitted morons who retired from middle management in order to over pay for their golf privileges and get all their news from FOX are exactly the demographic you are talking about.

not to mention the gulf coast seems to be a white trash mecca.

and yes..there IS an evangelical baptist church on every corner (true story).

and it is with great sadness that i have to admit to being neighbors with these very same dimbulbs who just re-elected rick scott.the same man who paid out the largest medicare fraud in HISTORY!

so thanks for reminding me i live in a mudpit of retards....thanks newt.

im gonna go crawl into a ball now and cry myself to sleep humming the doors "this is the end".

Home Depot is the place for Couples Therapy.

TONS of things cure cancer. All day, every day. Doctors have no clue what cancer is. All they can do is cut, burn, or poison and cross their fingers.

I didn't say Cannabis was THE cure. It is A cure used by thousands with amazing efficacy. Everyone is different.

Here's 60+ studies for your perusal if you insist on the superiority of western scientific research:

"Cannabis, and the cannabinoid compounds found within it, has been shown through a large cannabisplantamount of scientific, peer-reviewed research to be effective at treating a wide variety of cancers, ranging from brain cancer to colon cancer. Below is a list of over 60 studies that demonstrate the vast anti-cancer properties of cannabis.
Studies showing cannabis may combat brain cancer:
Cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the proliferation and invasion in U87-MG and T98G glioma cells. Study published in the Public Library of Science journal in October 2013.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can kill cancer cells by causing them to self-digest. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2013.
CBD is a novel therapeutic target against glioblastoma. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2013.
Local delivery of cannabinoid-filled microparticles inhibits tumor growth in a model of glioblastoma multiforme. Study published in Public Library of Science in January 2013.
Cannabinoid action inhibits the growth of malignant human glioma U87MG cells. Study published in Oncology Reports in July 2012.
Cannabidiol enhances the inhibitory effects of THC on human glioblastoma cell proliferation and survival. Study published in the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics journal in January 2010.
Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death in human glioma cells. Study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation in May 2009.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2008.
Cannabinoids and gliomas. Study published in Molecular Neurobiology in June 2007.
Cannabinoids inhibit gliomagenesis. Study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in March 2007.
A pilot clinical study of THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The results were published in the British Journal of Cancer in June 2006.
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through an independent cannabinoid receptor mechanism. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in April 2005.
Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (VEGF) in gliomas. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2004.
Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacology in November 2003.
Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2001.
Studies showing cannabis may combat colorectal cancer:
Cannabigerol (CBG) can inhibit colon cancer cells. Study published in the Oxford journal Carcinogenesis in October 2014.
Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardised Cannabis Sativa extract with high content of CBD. Study published in Phytomedecine in December 2013.
Chemopreventive effect of the non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid CBD on colon cancer. Study published in the Journal of Molecular Medecine in August 2012.
Cannabinoids against intestinal inflammation and cancer. Study published in Pharmacology Research in August 2009.
Action of cannabinoid receptors on colorectal tumor growth. Study published by the Cancer Center of the University of Texas in July 2008.
Studies showing cannabis may combat blood cancer:
The effects of cannabidiol and its synergism with bortezomib in multiple myeloma cell lines. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in December 2013.
Enhancing the activity of CBD and other cannabinoids against leukaemia. Study published in Anticancer Research in October 2013.
Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1). Study published in Case Reports in Oncology in September 2013.
Expression of type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptors in lymphoma. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in June 2008.
Cannabinoid action in mantle cell lymphoma. Study published in Molecular Pharmacology in November 2006.
THC-induced apoptosis in Jurkat leukemia. Study published in Molecular Cancer Research in August 2006.
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Study published in Blood American Society of Hemmatology in July 2002.
Studies showing cannabis can combat lung cancer:
Cannabinoids increase lung cancer cell lysis by lymphokine-activated killer cells via upregulation of Icam-1. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in July 2014.
Cannabinoids inhibit angiogenic capacities of endothelial cells via release of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 from lung cancer cells. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in June 2014.
COX-2 and PPAR-γ confer CBD-induced apoptosis of human lung cancer cells. Study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics in January 2013.
CBD inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in April 2012.
Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non–small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Study published in Cancer Prevention Research in January 2011.
THC inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced (EGF) lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Study published in the journal Oncogene in July 2007.
Studies showing cannabis may combat stomach cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-Fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells. Study published in Anticancer Research in June 2013.
Antiproliferative mechanism of a cannabinoid agonist by cell cycle arrest in human gastric cancer cells. Study published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry in March 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat prostrate cancer:
Cannabinoids can treat prostate cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in December 2012.
The role of cannabinoids in prostate cancer: Basic science perspective and potential clinical applications. Study published in the Indian Journal of Urology in January 2012.
Induction of apoptosis by cannabinoids in prostate and colon cancer cells is phosphatase dependent. Study published in Anticancer Research in November 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat liver cancer:
Involvement of PPARγ in the antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma (CHC). Study published in Cell Death and Disease in May 2013.
Evaluation of anti-invasion effect of cannabinoids on human hepatocarcinoma cells. Study published on the site Informa Healthcare in February 2013.
Antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma. Study published in Cell Death and Differentiation in April 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat pancreatic cancer:
Cannabinoids inhibit energetic metabolism and induce autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells. Study published in Cell Death and Disease in June 2013.
Cannabinoids Induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells. Study published in Cancer Research in July 2006.
Studies showing cannabis may combat skin cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor activiation can combat skin cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Cannabinoids were found to reduce skin cancer by 90% in just 2 weeks. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology in July 2013.
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in December 2006.
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, in January 2003.
Studies showing cannabis may combat other types of cancer:
Bladder: Marijuana reduces the risk of bladder cancer. Study published in the Medscape site in May 2013.
Kaposi sarcoma: Cannabidiol inhibits growth and induces programmed cell death in Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus-infected endothelium. Study published in the journal Genes & Cancer in July 2012.
Nose, mouth, throat, ear: Cannabinoids like THC inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. Study by the Department of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, published in June 2010.
Bile duct: The dual effects of THC on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration. Study published in Cancer Investigation in May 2010.
Ovaries: Cannabinoid receptors as a target for therapy of ovarian cancer. Study published on the American Association for Cancer Research website in 2006.
Preparation and characterisation of biodegradable microparticles filled with THC and their antitumor efficacy on cancer cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Drug Targeting in September 2013.
CBD Cannabidiol as a potential anticancer drug. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in February 2013.
Cannabinoids as anticancer modulators. Study published in the Progress in Lipid Research journal in January 2013.
CBD inhibits angiogenesis by multiple mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in November 2012.
Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Study published in Nature in June 2012.
Cannabinoid-associated cell death mechanisms in tumor models. Study published in the International Journal of Oncology in May 2012.
Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids and cancer. Study published in Cancer Metastasis Reviews in December 2011.
The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in July 2011.
This list was compiled in part by Alchimiaweb.com.
– TheJointBlog"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'conan, jordan, schlansky, therapy, human emotion' to 'conan, jordan schlansky, therapy, human emotion' - edited by xxovercastxx

No, a police dog is a dog. A tazer is a tool. (I could have made a terrible joke there, but will refrain)
I understand that humans being more 'valuable' than 'animals' (as if we aren't animals) is the normal way of thinking, but you make the knee jerk assumption/implication that they are the only options, either let a dog attack a dangerous armed person that WILL hurt/kill the dog or do it manually and be hurt yourself. There are MANY other options always available that don't involve releasing the unsuspecting dog into harms way. Most don't even involve deadly force. It would NEVER be proper to let the dog attack a known armed threatening person instead of using one's brain to deal with the danger in a safer manner, but that is what you've said you would do.
As a society, we have partially reversed the thinking that 'humans are more important than animals'. That is shown by the creation of many 'preserves' that stop people from farming/hunting on land to save animals, and that ends up killing some people (through starvation, malnutrition, etc). So while your statement is usually correct, people do usually consider humans more valuable than animals, as an absolutist statement it is wrong. That kind of thinking has put us in a position where the food chains are being broken because we only thought about humans (and not very thoroughly).

I'm sorry to hear about your cat, it's a terrible thing to have to help them go, but often the right thing for them. :-(

Your comments were "a dog is a tool" and "If I were tasked with taking a person with a machete into custody, I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." Both show a complete lack of concern for the dog, or even thought for it as a living, thinking, feeling being. The latter also shows a propensity to put the unsuspecting dog in far greater danger rather than accept a manageable danger themselves. In your scenario, you could easily disarm 'Machette' with your Taser, firearm, car, other officers, etc. with minimal or no danger to the officers, only more time taken, but you say you would send in the dog to get sliced. I find that terrible and not the words of someone that truly cares for the animal.
EDIT: " I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." really translates to 'I would be happy to have a dog risk their life over a person taking a chance.'...and I and others find that thinking uncaring and irresponsible towards the living, feeling being (your tool) who's care and welfare you took responsibility for.
You are quite correct, I could never be a cop. I don't have the mentality to constantly tell others what to do (and insist they follow my directions), or to deal with the drudgery of writing people tickets, paperwork, etc. I could not dehumanize people I think are criminals daily and treat them like the inhuman scum they 'are'. I would have too hard a time enforcing laws I disagreed with, and I would fear that dealing with people at their worst would make me think the worst of all people, and so cause me to treat them all like the awful criminals they are (in my mind), making me a douchebag with authoratah. I don't want to be that in any way.
I feel like being a cop is a truly hard job that screws with one's mind. Again, why I think therapy on the job should be mandatory.
Honest discussion is never a waste of time.

From a dude that's had cancer twice, the doctors at Princess Margaret's Hospital are pretty confident in saying I was cured of my first instance. It required some major surgery and a ton of radiation therapy, but the odds of it coming back are below 7%. In their books, that's a cure. =)

despite the RWNJ dig, you know it's worth noting when Lantern and I can actually agree on something.

Where's videosift's police force? Choggie's repeated lashing out at anyone who disagree with him is getting rather tiresome. We're getting tired of his pleas for attention. We are not his therapy session and the dude obviously needs some psychological/medical help.


@dag please get rid of him...again

OR chiccorea, SHALL WE DRAG, the entire sift community into your fucking therapy sesson, and make a deal of it, which I am VERY want to do. You have shown your ass here with regard to myself, are shitting once-again, on one of my posts, my comments, and you have a fucking problem that may very well cause my account to be unilaterally by admins stripped from me, and I consider ALL of my actions art in my life, INCLUDING my participation on this website.

You are forcing me to be this dick sir, and you have some real problems which are detrimental to this forum. Calling you out once again you pathetic asshole, what's it gonna be??

I'd be more than unhappy to have my account stripped from me by someone who obviously needs some hard-core therapy. You're socially inept and incite these incursions unilaterally with a view to my demise and I take issue with it. Does this make me your whipping-bitch?? Fuck that and no sir, it does not.

All you do here is hunt new submissions to see if you can ban someone for violations of rules, hassle me, and otherwise make benign, one-line comments with a brown-nose-finish as a thematic device.


*edit: I'll let this thread lay fallow or not and then take chichorreas's bullshit to the sift talk forum, I'm tired of one user's mental illness fucking with my place here....

You know, it's those instances where the youth (it's always a kid) is handcuffed and under control, yet still manages to get himself shot because he was suddenly so threatening to the cops they had no other choice. Those things only happen to black people in the U.S.

If you actually think the criminal justice system in the US treats everyone equally, regardless of color, you're really not worth talking to anymore, because you need therapy to deal with your delusional state, rather than debate.

Goodbye.

I'm a guy and was raped by a female cousin when I was around 9 or 10 she was in high school. I don't hate her for what she did but I wish it would of never happened because it messed me up. I have trust issues with every girl I ever dated, not only that I use to get real bad anxiety attacks to the point I was shaking in fear and sweating badly around females. I no longer get the anxiety attacks since therapy but the trust issue is still there.

This movie shows how evil we are as humans, at least that's what I got from it. I doubt the guy posting the nonsense about blaming women for rape, would feel the same way if it happened to one of his family members.

Assuming the 'negative outcome' scenario, also the nature of human consciousness (so simply and patently codified), what 'preparation' beyond one's will would prepare a human for a planet made hostile to humanity BY humanity?

Life itself is an injustice according to the parameters we are willing to accept as just or fair or equitable. So Emily here decides to film her abortion procedure for her own benefit, her own ego, a journalistic form of self-therapy perhaps? I would challenge any American white woman's spoken motivations for ending a pregnancy and find by peeling the layers of the onion away in about 10 minutes of Q&A that that little piece of meat growing inside of her needs to go because it's gonna be an inconvenience to her lifestyle, a challenge to her own limited consciousness of the nature of life and the universe.

Swat that little nuisance before it lands on my food, for crissakes.

That bug needs therapy! It's psychosomatic!

@BoneRemake et. al.:

I will answer to your comment for a change, Read the following paragraph, which is one of the last paragraphs and the meat of the matter if you want the short answer. For you or any that desire to join in Group Therapy, then continue reading.

Submissions to this Site are governed. I do not care...nor am I constrained to care or consider if, when, where, whether, how, etc., someone reads or does not read the guidelines. Nor am I constrained to care or consider whether their violation of said guidelines is intentional, accident of misinterpretation, the violators age, intelligence, sex or lack thereof, hair color.... AND I DO NOT CARE ! I am empowered to initiate, second, contest (which I do), or ignore an invocation of Ban. The reason I do not care is that each and every banee is informed at the time of banning that there are available avenues for redress in the occurrence of mitigating circumstance(s) or professed reorientation and thereby capable of productive and compliant participation at the Sift if that is, becomes, or ever was their intended purpose.


<Do you honestly have no clue as to what you do ? >
On one hand I might say arguably better than do you...on the other who really does?

<The only thing I personaly respect about what you do with the ban thing is that you adhere the Terms of service ( which everyone reads of course right ??? ).>
What can I say to that...ok.

<The rest of the time you deny possible gems in the rough without any warning.>
Blanket generalizations are inherently ridiculous and unsupportable. Aside from that your statement of observation is highly speculative and the issue of warning is mute besides.

< I mean I do not want to be so in your face, but to see you write that made me mad.>
I was polite and succinct. It is my privilege to exercise to inquire....the rest is a personal problem with which you must deal though I would wish otherwise for you and myself.

<You have denied so many possible peole here without any incling of the genuine purpose of the site,>
I have denied no peole(sic) here, possible or otherwise. As far as my having an incling(sic) this is again arguable to contestable and at best highly speculative on your part. I would submit to you, however, that the purpose of the site is served and supported by the originator(s) of the site and the rules and policies that they deem necessary and relevant. The interpretive perimeters by which they are implemented are set and monitored for compliance by those same individuals. If you have an issue with those policies there is ample avenue for open discussion and elucidation, not with me...not my job by happenstance or inclination.

<you just outright ban people>
I patently do not. I may and do initiate or second a ban and that only. Checks and Balances.

<and we are not stupid>
I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Really...we?...am I included?...how many are you?...whom all?...of course you are not.

<it is so you can garner some form of level up>
Your point? My motivation(s) for participation on any or whatever level I so chose or in what manner I choose is my own and not for you or anyone else to judge but for a quantifiable breach of demeanor and then not solely by but a couple of individuals. Do you not submit videos, comments, polls, etc., and accept comments, votes, badges, etc? If I were someone else here I might comment on the desirability of some number of those submissions as relates to the quality and genuine purpose of this or any site for that matter. But I am not that or any someone else and make no such judgement at this time about your contributions including the relevant comment.

<you got called on a lot of things in the past in that regard>
Really, how many...how many with objective merit or...on down and so what? As far as called on, you might say that is true of both of us and perhaps more so for you and then comes the argument respective to justifiability on grounds.

<SERIOUSLY ? ? you ask her why she explained

that ??>
You got me on that one, Yes, However, I did not pass a value judgement, express any alternate or opposing view or stance. Therefore I might profess some surprise at the timbre of your comments. Love you still.

While much of that which I attempted to cover strained answerability, much or most of the remainder defies it and so the following which is a departure from the set format.

Speaking to what may be trenchant to this matter overall is the following:

Submissions to this Site are governed. I do not care...nor am I constrained to care or consider if, when, where, whether, how, etc., someone reads or does not read the guidelines. Nor am I constrained to care or consider whether their violation of said guidelines is intentional, accident of misinterpretation, the violators age, intelligence, sex or lack thereof, hair color.... AND I DO NOT CARE ! I am empowered to initiate, seconded, contest (which I do), or ignore an invocation of Ban. The reason I do not care is that each and every banee is informed at the time of banning that there are available avenues for redress in the occurrence of mitigating circumstance(s) and thereby capable of productive and compliant participation at the Sift if that is, becomes, or ever was their intended purpose.

All the indulgence outside of this stance which is the sole province of the commenter and not binding...is merely that...indulgence and any and all are free to exercise their proclivity to such.

That was fun, overall, and I too love you enough to respond having done so with no vehemence, unsupportable assertions, profanity, personal aspersions, ear biting, eye gouging, or tongue pulling.

Again, love you Boneremake. Let's do this again sometime....NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo...,