I love NdGT, but he's making a lot of assumptions here.

First he's comparing two fictional spacecraft, while knowing next to nothing about the relative strengths and weaknesses of their weapons systems, materials or engines.

It could be that phasers are to the Millennium Falcon what muskets are to a tank or vice versa.

Even then, Falcon v Enterprise isn't really an even match up. Maybe Falcon v runabout or Enterprise v Star Destroyer?

As for BB-8, how does he know that it's a smooth surface?

Finally, aliens might find kissing weird, or they might not. It's not even unique to one species on this planet, and it's almost certainly an evolved behavior. If aliens evolved on a similar planet, there's a chance they might evolve similar traits. Unlikely, but not impossible.

@ChaosEngine
I would say you were onto a more useful definition of feminism in the beginning of the thread... all decent human beings in modern times must believe women are people; but they would only be feminists, if they are trying to reshape society's institutions to reflect that. Feminism, as you point out, would then be the civil movement with actual goals to achieve, whereas treating women with decency is a personality trait or a matter of good upbringing, without any specific goals. You can be either decent or a feminist, both, or neither.

A lot of people - conservatives, progressives, religious folk, etc. - believe women are people,* and treat women with respect in individual interactions, because they're decent folk - but they aren't actively trying (except by non-participation) to change the laws, cultures, or conditions that put women at a disadvantage. The ones who are feminists, OTOH, are the ones who, in accordance with their strategy and in their context, are trying to enact change.

In this way, being a decent person doesn't qualify or disqualify you as a feminist, just as being a screechy asshole doesn't qualify or disqualify you as a feminist - it's all about whether or not you are participating in the movement. I'll admit - my definition excludes a lot of people who call themselves feminist, and it includes a few people who wouldn't call themselves feminist - but still there's something about this definition that seems so much more, I don't know, useful, than saying 'you either believe women are people or you don't.'


*To take a slightly extreme example, I'm sure many Saudis would be adamant in saying that they believe women are people, it's just that they don't believe all people should drive cars. Such as, for example, women and children.

It's not inhumane ('humane' being another oxymoron, because it's meaning, and acting like a normal human, are opposites) because 1)they have a life at all, which they would not if not given the opportunity by my family 2) they have a place to live that life, which they would not if not given the use of the land and 3) nature also creates barriers to movement, so it's not unnatural for an animal to live it's entire lifespan in one place...perhaps for cattle, but not the rest. Farm animals are not humans, and those that have an aversion to being stationary have no place on a farm. You could say that not being nomadic is 'inhumane', as our natural state is not sedentary, but few would argue it's 'cruel'.
'Animals' are not humans, so are not slaves. That idea makes you sound ridiculous. See the South Park episode for a good example.
Stopping suffering is not within our scope.
There are many reasons why stopping meat eating is not reasonable, but the one you should be the most interested in is, if humans didn't eat cattle, they might be extinct. The same goes for many animals we eat, and if we didn't eat things like pork, the ecological disaster feral pigs create would be almost as bad as what humans do.
It would be easier and cheaper to change the conditions in the slums of India and elsewhere than it would be to eradicate the meat production (edit:and consumption) of the entire planet. What do the people do now that no longer have jobs? What do you do with all the animals that no longer have a 'use' and don't own property to move onto? How do you control their numbers so they don't destroy what's left of the planet?
Technically, yes, all humans are animals. Mentally handicapped humans are not TREATED 'like animals', by which you MEAN treated poorly and without thought for their comfort and well being, which in fact is NOT how most animals are treated in our first world society, no matter how much you think so. Factory farms are a different matter.
When dolphins take control, they can treat mentally handicapped dolphins better than average humans. It's not arbitrary to treat your own species as the most important, it's an evolutionary trait almost all species likely possess.
No, I can't eat an entire vegan diet. I've tried many vegan foods, and found them ALL inedible, some made me sick.

You made blanket statements about how ALL animals are treated, and how ALL meat is produced and then defended that blanket statement. I'm glad you now admit your mistake, I hope you can see it through and stop blanket blaming ALL meat eaters.

What other people eat is farther outside your influence than how they treat their children.

Without the calorie dense food that is 'meat', we would still be nomadic gatherers, if we could exist at all. Eating meat is one of the things that gave us the energy to evolve those 'higher brains' that can choose our actions and determine what's 'rational'.
You will never see a vegan Olympic athlete. (Edit: well, maybe in Olympic curling...)

Daesh has brought about change...a change that THEY see as positive. That's not a good argument.

Yes, you are a monster for supporting such unabashed, unproductive carnivores ;-)...and I would hazard a guess that you don't feed them only free range, gmo free turkey carcasses, so you sound worse than me, the unashamed meat eater that pays the extra money for proper animal treatment....not just for them but because it's healthier meat too.

I did my part for the animals and the planet by not having children. ;-) Too bad I'm such a minority that it won't make a whit of difference.

I guess that's why, when bugs are bothering our face/hair, we flail around haplessly while the bugs always seem to get away with it. Are most bugs like this, then? Does it have more to do with creature size than specific evolved traits?

I put very little stock in these personality tests. In particular, I don't trust them because they only describe whatever personality you have in positive, flattering terms - a trait/tactic very similar to horoscopes. Of course you will like the result if you are being compared to Shakespeare and told that you are among the most brilliant minds in the known universe.

So the MBTI's practical use is overwhelmingly unscientific, and it's often criticized for this. Criticism ranges from the pragmatic fact that neither Jung nor Myers and Briggs ever employed scientific studies to develop or test these concepts, relying instead on their own observations, anecdotes, and intuitions; all the way to charges that your MBTI score is hardly more meaningful than your zodiac sign.

Competitive Slackline Tricking https://youtu.be/iRezj9BOEBQ

https://youtu.be/7QDMaTGsOBo

The Racism Of Mass Incarceration http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/404890/prison-inherited-trait/

Queens of Brooklyn: The NYC Girls Dominating Youth Chess https://youtu.be/Kxdoh1a5dwc

https://youtu.be/ge4HNwOpfRk

A most beautiful demolition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TnG3jh6KTQ

https://youtu.be/XYUEW3_WvH0

People will still call you a liberal or conservative, whatever.
When you get your information like that you will have many different opinions that dont fit one side. People will attack you even more, since youre now in the middle, between the extremists. Even if youre on their side on some things, they will still attack you because you dont go the whole way. On the other hand people from the other side will attack you because you have a trait of their "enemy" on one topic, so you must be a full blown "other sideling".
But people want to be accepted by the society, so they most of the time decide for one side. Thats why the world is getting more black and white and reason is becoming extinct.

So...are we talking about Swan monogamy or situational or temporary monogamy? Because last time I checked the majority of Americans or others haven't had just one partner. Nor, even if they have, do they keep those "feelings" of relationship to one individual (Such as that soulmate feeling, sex-free.)

You could argue that boning, fucking, sucking, dating people until you decide it is convenient to settle down is monogamy, and that's fine. Well, right until most people leave/cheat/explore. Then they gotta get back into the routine eventually, because you know it's so natural...

You are born human, sexual, primal, and society tames you. You are born uncircumcised, and who tells you it is wrong? Religious freaks. Who tells you missionary is right, and sex is for procreation? Society. Basically, anything that Rome and Greece did, after they committed atrocities around the world, is now considered wrong. Orgies, emperors, GAY SEX, etc. Coincidence? Probably not.

Tell me Chaos, who did tell you polyamory was "learned"? Biologists? Or society? Or some crappy half-witted data that just says so?

No, devil's advocate here is the same, to me, as devil's advocate against homosexuals.

At least that's my heartfelt belief. I was once wholly monogamous, even turned down a threesome with my first girlfriend. Then I realized that marriage was based on ownership, a very human trait, but monogamy is inconvenient for damn near everyone who practices it.

*promote (got me by 5 min)

When a man doesn’t love a woman very very much
He signs away his paternal rights and jizzes in a cup
Then with lots of money and scientific genius
Hormones, pain and of course, um… Jesus

The process begins the way god intended
With a transvaginal ultrasound
With a wand longer than a ukulele
When it comes out of my body, it makes this sound (pop)

I give myself daily intradermal injections
An acute blood thinner and estrogen concurrence
Cryopreservation through hormonal activation
And none of it’s covered by insurance

Then I’m knocked out and you’re removed
And combined with a stranger’s come
And as the saying goes
You win some, you lose some/you dispose of the defective ones in a hazardous waste bin

And then you’re frozen until I’m certain
It’s time to unthaw you into a person
Then you’ll expire or you’ll make the grade
And that, my darling, that’s how babies are made
(It’s so easy and natural)

CHORUS:
Hush little egg baby don’t say a word
Mama’s gonna freeze you til she gets rich

And when that day finally arrives
You’ll be constructed in a petri dish
With sperm donor 8w6-3
The silent partner of our family

So hush little egg baby don’t be sad
Just because I never fucked your dad

VERSE 2:
I know there are orphans everywhere
But I’m going to pretend that isn’t real
Don’t look at me like that just cause I admit it
You had kids and you knew the deal

Yeah I feel guilty about overpopulation
And ruining the environment for forever
But Osama Bin Laden had 20 kids
So fuck you or whatever

Sadly procreation is not a meritocracy
And we need to prevent a real life Idiocracy
Though it may be the ultimate form of narcissism
It’s also a way to re-reverse reverse Darwinism

Gonna mute the sound of that ticking clock
I just need the sperm now I don’t need the cock
My ovaries are like hey girl I’m over here
And I’m all like shhhh

I want all the stuff I don’t need a bucket list
It doesn’t make me greedy it just makes me feminist
Now I’m thinking back through all the guys I’ve dated
If they heard this song they’d fucking hate it

CHORUS:
Hush little egg baby don’t you cry
You’ll have the best genes mommy can buy

I don’t want to wait until I get in dire straights
My friends say if I want kids I should go out on some dates
But these working bitches don’t have time to leave it to the fates
The world deserves more Riki’s and the world deserves more Kate’s

So hush little egg baby dad’s are overrated
He did what mattered when he masturbated

BRIDGE:
Hush little egg baby just hold firm
Mama’s gonna buy you designer sperm

And if that sperm gives you random traits
Mama’s gonna test your dna

And if your dna doesn’t make things clear
Mama’s gonna just have to live in fear

And if that fear turns into guilt
Mama’s gonna hold onto what we built

And if I hold too tight as to suffocate
I’ll buy you lots of things to overcompensate

And if that overcompensation’s too transparent
I’ll pretend it’s somehow better with no male parent

And if you say but mom who’s my dad
I’ll say I don’t know and it’s just too bad

And if that badness forms a hole in your heart
I’ll want to make it up to you but won’t know where to start

I’ll probably start by saying it’s just you and me
And there’s no such thing as a normal family

So fuck being normal and let’s do this shit
Momma’s gonna freeze you til she… gets…. rich

Personally traits have nothing to due with it, the video has two messages the first, funny message, is that yes there is a difference between the traits of westerners and Chinese people. The second, racist message, is that western couples don't actually love each other.

The video shows all the Chinese personality quarks as good natured ways the couple loves each other, such as sharing food, and the man sacrificing his money. The "western" people are shown in a relationship where they don't trust each other such as the man calling his SO a "b*tch" and spending all their money behind her back.

Think for a second, what of the video had been made about African Americans? would that be okay? (No it would not)

That's patently false. It's not racist to depict true personality traits that are popular or common in a culture.

I've witnessed many American couples on many occasions discuss and demonstrate their disapproval about sharing their food. The best example that my wife and I often laugh about was an older couple where the wife was reaching over to pick at something small (maybe a french fry) and the husband with a scowl completely seriously and angrily slapped the back of her hand to stop her.

No, not all westerners or Americans would do such a thing, nor do all have a problem with their partner picking at their food, but that's because there isn't ANYTHING that EVERYONE of ANY race does, except breathe and poop, but it is a common thing in this culture.

TBF, Hitchens argument wasn't that women can't be funny or even that individual women aren't funny.

He was saying that humour is viewed as an attractive trait in men, therefore there is an evolutionary pressure on men to be funny. Women don't have this pressure because men tend to select a mate based on looks more than humour. As a result of this, women don't have to be funny to procreate and the average woman is less likely to be funny

Where it falls down for me is in two factors:
1: being funny is not necessarily a genetic trait that can be passed on
2: even if it is a genetic trait, surely all these funny men would have funny offspring regardless of gender.

The word stereotype originally comes from printing and simply means a copy of the original, i.e. possessing the same traits. There's no evaluation, simply expectation.

The standard model for this is that stereotype leads to prejudice which leads to discrimination.

i.e. because you're wearing a bladed glove and have a mutilated face, I expect that you are some kind of nightmare monster. This leads me to a prejudice that because nightmare monsters have tried to kill me in the past, I don't like them.
Therefore, I will actively discriminate against you by throwing you in a fire.

Thought -> emotion -> action.

But pretty much everything else is right.... except I suck at basketball.

That was a bit hard for me to follow....
But I agree, it's not so hard....people just feel differently about exactly what constitutes being 'racist'.
racism:"noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement"

Some accept the generalized idea that it's only about negative racial prejudice, some accept the idea that it's about (falsely*) discriminating (used in the literal sense, meaning "to note or observe a difference") between races at all (*because in nearly every case, race is not actually indicative of a specific trait).

The difference between prejudice and racial prejudice is the latter is prejudging based on race. It can be a positive or negative judgment, in either case. EDIT: that's why when it's negative, you would say 'prejudiced AGAINST'.

To be fair, my friends and I are extremely racist to each other in our text messages, but we are a hodge podge mix of white, black, Mexican, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Iranian, and really who cares about trying to include them all.

See, smart people gravitate towards each other regardless of race or sexual orientation because they were in honors and AP classes together, competing in academic decathlon, speech and debate, and went to the same tutoring place, hanging out not because they were cool and looked the same, but because they are intellectual gladiators; only idiots revolve their lives around a group of mammals simply because they look alike. It's truer than you think. You end up living up to other people's expectations and fail to experience the joys of your unique mind if you don't diversify your experiences. We are all prototypes for a future society anyway. White people are a conglomerate of interracial breeding. Also, it's simply genetically irresponsible NOT to mix genes with people of differing racial traits.

Why? Because all humans are niggers. It's just not common courtesy to call people niggers in public, and certainly you wouldn't call someone you don't know a nigger. Say what you will, I feel like there's an overriding logic that makes criticism of that pretty clearly crybaby bullshit. Black people have a reason to cry, and then there's white people lol; but, we are all just people so how does that not override your logic on BOTH sides of the argument? I'm above and below everything and nothing. I am the all singing, all dancing crap of the world. You might not agree but life is transitory and we'll all die and fertilize the ground.

So, in retrospect, let's continue to call friends and family niggers as we see fit, but let's not so hastily call someone we don't know a nigger; likewise, let us continue to judge ourselves as unworthy, but not judge others as such. I feel like that should make everyone do alright.