http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

DNA is more sophisticated than any code we have ever developed, and that is understating the case. It has a language, grammatical syntax, error correction, vocabulary and meaning. If you read the article you will see that scientists were stunned to find a hidden code operating within the code. Even a superficial understanding of DNA is enough to see that it is not by any means "primitive" but actually it is advanced beyond our capability to understand it.

That isn't the argument though, that DNA is sophisticated, which it is. The argument is that the information in DNA is proof of design. What that design is intended to do is another question. You may look at certain features and say, here is a terrible design, simply because you don't understand the intentions of the designer. Only a super-intellect could have designed DNA, and I don't think that is going out on a limb by any means.

Not at all. I certainly did not say it doesn't count. I said it's different.
You said yourself you moved away from there. Minorities can't move away from being refused a loan, getting a better job, or abuses of power. They can't run away from TV hosts seemingly amazed that black people know how to use a fork. They have to deal with more than explicit manifestation of discrimination.
That does in no way diminishes what you had to live through.

To quote Louis CK:
"I'm not trying to say that if you're white you can't complain. I'm just saying that if you're black you get to complain more."

I also want to stress, in line with my previous remark on "labels", that the vocabulary we use to discuss these issues is often not good enough, or at least not precise enough. We want to use (or claim) the word 'racism' because it carries that emotional weight needed to make a statement, even though it obviously means different things to different people. Should we instead use qualifiers like "community discrimination", "systemic discrimination"? Probably. But it's not likely to happen. To me the important point is not how it's called, but that people who are not confronted with this reality understand what effects it has on those who have live it.

Totally agree with @Polymathe, @artician, and @Ickster. This is a horrible video.

And it's simply ridiculous to start it off with the idea that every man has only the two options to either speak 1) with a phony tough guy voice using limited vocabulary or 2) with a lispy feminine voice using a broader vocabulary.

No-judgement answer service, right. But straight dudes have a limited vocabulary. Good to know!

One of the many core and wrong ideas in Feminism is that the sex of a person doesn't seem to play much of a role in anything. And in this case, Feminism is responsible for holding back medical science. Feminism is a blight on intellectual discourse. I'm not going to spend the time it takes to unravel a snake like Feminism here, but in brief, it's an untenable ideology.

One of its core philosophies is the idea of the Patriarchy, which is not only theoretical, but creates hypocritical scenarios in Feminist debate.

For instance, Feminists state that the Patriarchy supports and allows men to lead privileged lives. Yet when it is pointed out that men are sentenced twice as long for exact same crimes; men have zero protection of their genitals as babies; that there is FAR more funding for women's schooling, businesses, and health; or that in any emergency situation it is expected that men's lives are forfeit - the argument you'll get back is "See, Patriarchy hurts men too!". This rebuttal is in obvious contradiction to the idea that Patriarchy allows men to live privileged lives.

Another core idea is wage gap which has been disproven over and over for decades, even by some Feminsts:

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Feminism also focuses a great deal on "objectification", which presupposes that men are (always) sexually attracted to something *other* than the curves of a womans body. This is not only obviously off kilter for anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary psychology, but has been scientifically proven false. Men are biologically wired to base mate finding on looks.

So the word 'objectification' actually becomes Feminist propaganda for the demonizing of male sexuality.

Furthermore regarding female objectification in society - we all often see the viral videos "How Women's Bodies Are Changed Beyond Recognition in Photoshop!" But consider that 80% of consumer dollars are spent by women. So in essence we have women complaining about women being objectified while women buy into objectification. What exactly do we expect advertising agencies to do?

I've even seen scenarios for men in which, if he found a woman attractive, then he's objectifying her; and if he found her unattractive, then he's shallow for only caring about looks.

Then there is argument from Feminists that Feminism helps to empower men as well. No, it doesn't. In fact much has been shown in the opposite: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/

98% of workforce deaths are male. You never see Feminists rallying to take on these jobs on the front lines in combat, or in jobs that involve heavy machinery, working outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals. Why not? After all, fair is fair! Let's remove the stigma around men being "losers" if they are stay-at-home Dads, while Moms can be the breadwinners for once.

It's clear that Feminism isn't about gender equality. You never see Feminists rallying about how He-Man set an unrealistic body image for boys, but the focus and attention on Barbie has been unreal.

Take into consideration, among everything else I've stated, that words like "mansplaining" are part of Feminist vocabulary, and I think you start to get a picture why no self respecting man has anything to do with Feminism.

There's much much more research, evidence, and articles I can cite, but the final point is that Feminism is a toxic and counterproductive movement.

Perhaps there will be "equality between the sexes" when the likelihood of men becoming estranged from their children and families after a divorce is the same as it is for women... Or when the expectation of "supporting" one's family is actually spending time with them and not simply being their "wallet"...

I'll see equality when the life expectancy between men and women is the same... Or when the risk of becoming homeless is the same... Or to become a victim of violence (or simply being suspected of violence or threatened with violence due to ones gender) is the same.. Or when the probability of dying by suicide is the same. . . Perhaps we'll all be equal then.

And also helping the client to establish their requirements.

This is clearly a client who has a vision but lacks the vocabulary to express their needs accurately. If you're incapable of using your expert knowledge to help your client achieve their vision, within the constraints of what's possible....then you don't just fail at engineering, you fail at life.

Don't forget that, as an expert, much of what you take for granted is a mystery or only vaguely understood by other people. If someone uses incorrect terminology or demonstrates an incomplete understanding of technology, then as a professional, it's your job to help bridge that gap without assaulting their dignity.

@enoch, just for the record, let's be clear about the timeline in this thread. There were a few posts then ching made a post complaining about the video, and making an irrelevant ad hom on Darwin. Some people down voted him for it, and that seems fair to me in that it wasn't a useful or interesting comment. Personally, I didn't, because I know that's what he wanted.

He then got all defensive, and posted more pseudo-philosophical persecution complex bollocks, which I then called him on. It wasn't even a very harsh comment, but then he decided to respond and just kept digging.

Unsurprisingly, other people took umbrage at this.

my problem with @chingalera is not his use of flowery language, but just that he's so bad at it. I can wax eloquent with the best of them and if the situation warrants, I have a positively egregious vocabulary of verbose verbiage in my arsenal of debating devices, argumentative arms and combative communications, but frankly, it's just not needed most of time, and invariably simple language communicates better.

The main issue I have is it's just so pointless. His language is always vague, and I'm increasingly convinced this is deliberate, merely so he can pick and choose how to be offended.

So mission accomplished, another thread derailed, and chingaleras narcissism quotient for the day is filled.

Jeez, sorry, but the first line of your diatribe was all I could manage.I guess the word succinct ain't in your vocabulary.

@SDGundamX Excellent point and personally guilty on both subjects of discourse, as I have hit numerous brick-walls and spent way too much time in my lifetime arguing semantics with both the police (who will never change) and in the realms of religion vs atheism, an equally as banal and dead-end exercise.

Oh and newt? Fuck a thesaurus and your assumptions-I have a larger vocabulary that most volumes will hold wielded like a coach gun with a hair trigger. Fuck yours and y'alls, didactic adherence to unlikely plausibles. Logic be damned, befaced as we are with the exponential rate of changes coming down the pike. Riiiight. You live in a world whose boundaries reside in logic, intelligence, reason and order. The illusion being, you haven't a clue and none of us do.

Everything we believe true is wrong, a healthy mantra.

In the realm of civility? Civility begets the same with me, uncompromising unshakeable, late-stage, hydrophobic atheists haven't discovered what that means yet.

While he has an important message that he is trying to get across. This "culture" they are arguing about goes far deeper than anyone realizes. Vocabulary should be the least of anyone's concern. For a side note about the vocabulary used, the word in question has lost its meaning as he is stating. Can it be a powerful word when used in a demeaning and demoralizing context? Absolutely. However, the blatant use and misuse of the word by everyone, blacks, whites and everything in between, has changed the meaning of the word. It is similar to the word fag. It has been years since I have heard the word actually used as a vicious attack towards a homosexual. Can it be? Absolutely. It is commonly used as that? Not even close. Words change meanings over time and especially over generations.

This is not the case here. The "culture" they talk about starts with teenage boys. Walk into a high school locker room. The threatening messages these two dolphins players sent each other are the same ones kids use. Martin even sent a text message to Incognito apologizing for the situation and that he doesn't blame him or they interactions. They are still friends. That says more about the whole situation than anything. They are still friends.

This "culture," yes I'm using quotes for a reason, is being founded in these men from the time they are boys. I was in locker rooms through high school and college. Have I used all the words they refer to? Yes I have. Do I hate anyone I was talking to? Not in the slightest, but it still happened because boys are boys. They don't know any better. That is the real issue. Coaches at the high school and college level are failing their players, not in a sport sense, but in a "how not to be a condescending piece of shit asshole" way. The morals I learned from my parents and family were not taught by many of my coaches. I had one coach who would bench you for this type of behavior. He did not care if you were the star or a third stringer. He did no care if we lost. He said he was more interested in teaching the kids how to be real men than to be football players. This was a great college coach and a great mentor.

This falls to them and to parents to try and teach at a young age this is not socially acceptable behavior. If they don't, they grow into men like we have on the dolphins, and then we have news stories like this. If these announcers think this isn't what EVERY single NFL or NBA locker room is like then they are even more delusional than I first thought.

Seconded.

If your "Thats racist!!!" comment requires the qualifier "because he's black", you're wrong. You're an asshole and you're just wrong.

TBH i didn't even notice the slip-up, because unlike "epithet", "epitaph" is not part of my vocabulary and i just immediately understood him.

but why in god's name would anyone let private locker room exchanges damper their faith in our nation's progression towards equality for all?
There are so many many hateful & bigoted actions committed every day, and you want to soapbox about some guy playing it loose with offensible language...

Just to take it a little bit too far, which of these men is letting skin color more strongly influence the judgements they're making?

Edit: full disclosure i have no idea who any of these people are, what rumors they are talking about, or what is a football

Edit2: just saw the voicemail message LOL HOLY SHIT it is 4chan worthy! racial slurs aside it is the most verbally abusive thing i've seen in a long time (but i still don't know them, so thats just how it feels to me). if i got a message half that severe, i would probably shit myself on the spot (but im not a big tough footballist)

Heh, oh you Americans, you get so very po-faced about racism. Where's that clip of John Cleese talking about confusing seriousness with solemnity when you need it.

Perhaps, just perhaps, I was just amused at the idea of a racial epitaph and wasn't interested in subjugating his whole race? Perhaps I realise everyone has blind spots in their vocabulary that come and bite them occasionally, and it's all the funnier for having been in a very serious and impassioned speech? Perhaps not everything is about race?

I think it has to be a combination of the same person in multiple roles, across multiple films, that all happen to share extremely similar vocabulary. I'm sure you could make one for every actor if you narrowed it down to, say, "Will Smith says 'And'".
Samuel L Jackson probably has a near-monopoly on a montage of multi-film "mother fucker" lines.

My favorite is still the Shia Labeouf "no no no no" montage. That ones timeless.

Well I was using your definition, but I think alley is the correct description of what is in the photos I put up.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alley

And just pulling a few out to highlight here:

2. A path between flower beds or trees in a garden or park. (Goes between trees).
1. a narrow lane or passage, esp one between or behind buildings
1. a passage, as behind a row of houses, permitting access from the street to backyards, garages, etc. (goes behind housing, allows access to backyards)

But you give me the correct word for that location if you would, so I can berate your choice of vocabulary and make insinuations as to your intent.

Haven't posted here in months or maybe a year because of this petty definition bickering that seems to show up each time I post, and here it is again.

You say "prove it" a lot. I think you need to work on increasing your vocabulary!!