Is it possible that, during his entire time exploring this topic, he's overlooked the existence of arrows?

Fascinating talk though. Nice history lesson and informed thoughts.

Exploring tugs until...............

I thought this was going to be a heart breaking tale about group of people who are going through hormone replacement therapy, and this movie explores their relationships and personal lives.

But it's just another super hero movie.

Good point. I'm not aware of any clone armies at all. Probably more likely to do with budget and technical challenges than anything else.
TNG at least is very much focused on the human condition, and just uses a sci-fi theme to explore it. So I guess when it comes to cloning, they were able to explain individuality, past choices, regrets, missed opportunities etc easily enough with just one clone instead of many.

*promote exploring the solar system....but does this mean they scrapped the mission to retrieve Discover One?
It will certainly be interesting to find out if the red cracks are red from bacteria or something else.

It almost sounds like he is suggesting to keep an open mind and learn about other cultures, religions & mythology in order to understand those perspectives; and overall to be humble to the mystery: that we do not know.

In my opinion some of his opinions were a little contradictory - he doesn't believe in any sort of god or gods, but it seems that a wiser statement would be that he doesn't know, which would correspond with the "I don't believe in atheists" theme.

Furthermore, I honestly don't think that those who (in Hedges' words), "do not explore the religious impulse" are inhuman. Even if someone never explores it in their lifetime. In my opinion - the late bloomers who have disconnected themselves from all inclination of organized religion or spirituality, to find it on their own later in life might have a few more advantages than those that did not disconnect themselves from it at some point.

My personal preference is that I do believe in god because I want to believe in god. Whether it's a metaphor, completely abstract energy, a point in spacetime, a massive intelligent energy field that existed long before the big-bang, a life-force found only on Earth or the Milky Way or a fucking super mega alien technological consciousness program experiment or even a microscopic white dude flying on a microscopic magic carpet or all of the above and none of the above. I just believe even though my version of whatever creation/god is, is completely unidentifiable, it's everything and it's nothing.

Worsley didn't make it.

I'm 'offended' by the word 'offensive'. There is no easier, quicker way to prove you're too lazy or stupid to actually discuss and analyze a difficult subject matter than saying 'You can't do that, it's offensive!'
Joking about controversial or simply horrible things may not be emotionally safe for everyone involved but you can not watch Luis CK and expect he won't bring up stuff like rape. That's some risky stuff, sure. It's very easy to become cruel or sadistic with this but if you look not just at the intent but also the perspective of the comedian, it'll become clear that it is surprisingly empathic. Not only does Luis show empathy for the perpetrator but also goes further and analyzes the motives.
Comedy is a tool to analyze and understand subject matters. It takes intelligence and brutal honesty to make jokes as successfully as Luis does, especially when discussing issues like pedophilia.
That's why I laugh about CK's rape jokes but get angry when a guy stands on a stage and just says 'Wouldn't it be funny if somebody raped you?' to a female heckler. One explores a topic and tries to understand it, the other is just being a cruel asshole.
There's a reason laughter isn't a common sound in churches. Good humor often deconstructs what we tend to understand as unqestioned, common knowledge. It reduces kings to mere humans, prophets to popular madmen and gods to fairytale characters. 'Offensive' is the word you use when you're not pious enough to shout 'blasphemy'.

So because a moron hamfistedly voiced sentiments similar that then invalidates the whole position?

It's not self centred to value equality of opportunity over equality of outcome. In fact I would argue the exact opposite.

I think it not only illiberal to enforce "correct speech", but more importantly regressive.

i.e. I think the very progress the PC police are so desperate to create and defend, is a demonstrable product of the free flow of ideas and perspectives.

Anything which limits ones ability to think I believe could be considered regressive in such terms. This includes exploring "problematic" ideas and language.

I wont insult you by listing various ideas which were once suppressed, either culturally or legally. But the sheer length of it drives much of my conviction.

To put all of that into simpler terms; this film, to me, was much more about the dangers of group think than any one petty issue about the right word.

It's about what happens when critical thought is suspended, suppressed or demonised.

I'm not sure Donald Trump has ever had a critical thought in his life.

I'd rather have men search my cavities than exploring this.

Your video, Men Explore A Cave FILLED With Bugs, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You're cute, but I'd love to see you try to pull the rear bearing on a 2004 Explorer.

Be a lot more "ask a parent" and a heck of lot more NSFW.

Writing: All of these shows are what we might call 'clever,' which is generally a big selling point for me. Unexpected, heavily layered, structurally complex writing for comedic effect - a lot of recursive, iteratively growing humor. They're all also quite big on dialogue, and are comparatively 'dark'.

Themes: All of them also feature self-destructive and dysfunctional characters, to different degrees. In addition to this:

Rick & Morty: Does brilliant deconstruction of science fiction concepts without a condescending outside perspective. An amazing example is (spoilers) the time that Rick makes Cronenbergs of the entire global population, or the time that Morty's indecisiveness creates split quantum timelines.

Potentially good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5A5Mb__fiA

Always Sunny: Never shies away from exploring the darkest consequences of its incredibly self-absorbed, idiotic, low attention span, high energy, self-destructive cast.

Potentially good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_49P1RtqU0

Arrested Development: ...I'm not good at writing these synopses; I just wanted to see if I could figure out why I love these shows so much. Anyway, Arrested Development is the most heavily layered of all of them, so in just a few episodes it builds up an incredible library of call-backs, double meanings, etc. It's also less abrasive than the other two, if you have something against offensive shows.

...I don't know if there any good example scenes. You should just watch it.

Remains to be seen if EVERY star system contains life or if he just didn't properly describe the systems. More than likely, like similar games where you explore the universe, you will have a sustainability of life detector.

Also, you do realize that the exploration of a planet is one aspect fo the game? Assuming this is a sim, there will be city creation, ship creation, etc. I mean, really think about all the aspects of things in the actual universe and those things may all be possible.

I don't know anything about their plans for creativity, but if it's anything like Minecraft, you can do a youtube search to see the endless possibilities of that game. Now imagine it in an entire universe?

Or an entire planet's worth of ecology, ranging from desert to tundras to barrier reefs to Himalayanesque mountain ranges -- That's amazing.

But only as amazing as our imaginations can project. Not as limiting as we only see in the small space of time allowed to air on Colbert.

Could you explain why you thought my previous post proposed a false dichotomy? It seems sound to me, even after looking at it a second time.

I don't disagree with your analyses of the underlying causes for the current version of the Palestinian conflict. History has shat on them and they're still stuck in it. Although I will nitpick that the tactic of suicide bombing is probably employed on account of specific Islamic beliefs, as relatively few such attacks are carried out by non-Muslims.

The IRA comparison is an interesting one with some meat on it, and I may meander a bit here as I explore my thoughts on it. The Northern Irish conflict, at its core, was not about religion, it was about sovereignty and independence. I don't doubt that both sides attempted to use the bible as a weapon. The very fact that the attempt was unable to create a sect that spread like wildfire across Christendom is a form of evidence that is it less applicable as a weapon. Certainly not proof, but I would count it a point in my favour, not yours.

Note that I'm not saying that there's nothing awful in the Bible, only that it is acknowledged that we don't take most of those parts of it seriously. Any attempt to do so would generate a chorus of condemnation throughout Christian majority countries the world over. Just look at how the we view the Westboro Baptists; they're a farce. Until the Muslim world is willing and able to do the same thing to it's fundamentals and fundamentalists it is not only fair to criticize it, it is important to do so. And when I say criticize 'it' I mean those beliefs that lead to bad shit.

If every terrorist act is predicated on worldly concerns, how do you rationalize the perpetrators of the Charlie hebdo massacre? How do you rationalize the absurd reactions to the shitty anti-Muslim movie that was made? How about the Danish cartoonist incident? The list goes on and on. These are acts that didn't significantly affect the 'injured' parties in any but a religious way. Their responses are explicitly and overtly for religious reasons, while being completely in line with a straightforward and insufficiently fringe interpretation of their religion.