this was a great discussion.
i was never a huge fan of sam harris as being a solid representative of an atheist viewpoint until a fellow sifter pointed some great essays by harris (waves to qwiz).my narrow opinion was mainly due to only watching short clips of harris,which is pretty unfair to harris and not indicative of his approach.

so i have gained a modicum of respect for harris in his ability to be reasoned in certain instances,though i may still disagree with many of his conclusions,for a multitude of reasons.

that being said i had two problems with this interview:
1.the first 5 minutes was harris whining and crying.that was total turn off.
2.at approx the 2hr mark he makes the argument that islam needs to experience a reformation,great argument and one i agree with,but in the VERY next sentence out of his mouth he criticizes reza aslan as not suggesting that islam is desperately in need of a reformation.

this is an out and out,bold face lie;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_god_but_God:_The_Origins,_Evolution,_and_Future_of_Islam

the entire book is an argument for reformation of islam!!

props to cenk for calling harris out on his draconian imaginary policies (if he were in charge).the arrogance of harris needs to be challenged at ever step and cenk did a great job.harris spent the majority of this interview back-pedaling.

there are some amazing atheist thinkers out there and throughout history,harris,at best,is mediocre.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.
*promote

I read somewhere that there's a difference in the tastebuds of men and women that makes whiskey more palatable to men. Something about mens tastebuds not being as affected by the bold flavor. I'm pretty sure I cringed as bad as these women after my first shot. Even now it can give me the willies sometimes.

The woman in the "experiment" is a total hypocrite. In fact, that little undercover experiment shot the credibility of everyone else's story, and the video in general.

She dressed in a way clearly meant to elicit reaction. heck she even said it was "provocative" hello, the word provocative literally means "voice call out forward" ... pro + vocare (latin for call, voice) Imagine a guy walking around with 100 bills taped all over his body, he'd be an idiot if he expected no one would look at him. If he was robbed, women would ask him .."huh why did you tape $100 bills all over you?"

The little BS hidden camera thing is clearly put on someone who's looking to find people to yell things out, for the purpose of "proving a point" and making a problem appear more serious than it is. If it happens to every day women constantly - then why not choose a woman that's dressed more "normally" ?

Obviously some of the more physical assault-like things are inexcusable, but anything else, verbal or otherwise, is just men doing what society (including women) have taught them to do: be aggressive, be bold.. why is it that...

good looking guy that calls out = man that is bold and goes after what he wants
ugly guy that calls out = creep that harasses.

And women go around wondering why "men don't understand and it's so hard to teach them..?" maybe try being a little honest and consistent for starters?

@lantern53

Having been an officer for a long time, long enough to really have seen the entire process of the "militarization" of the police force from its inception to its current state. I'd really like to know your opinion of it. Can you honestly say you feel its appropriate, even needed or justified? The very rare opportunities I've had in the past to ask police officers this question, i find they are very reluctant to give honest and straight answers. Paraphrasing, they tend to fall back on the, "we'd rather have it and not need it" line of thinking. If you do support it, do you truly feel you or the officer utilizing it have received appropriate training?

I remember driving by our local police station (small town Texas) on the way to school and seeing BOTH the giant armored vehicles parked prominently in front with the bold SWAT on the side. Its always been extremely hard for me to accept them or the fact that we as a town of 30k needed a SWAT team to begin with.

Oh Bob. It's better to remain silent and let people think you an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it.
97% is not the same thing as 97. Also, the correct number is really closer to 99.9% of all published climatologists, if not higher. Those who know, know. Those who believe don't know jack.
There are many ways to differentiate human produced CO2 from naturally occurring CO2, and therefore prove the rise is due to man. This has been done repeatedly and conclusively. The simplest way is to simply look at the graph of the rise and compare it to our use of fossil fuels, they are exactly the same curve at exactly the same time, with exactly the same dips and bumps. It's certainly not the only method, but is a simple to understand one.
It's ridiculous to state that to live 'green' you must live as if in a 3rd world country. That is simply BS stated by unreasonable men without any knowledge (and usually with a financial incentive to be anti-green/pro-fossil fuel).
It's also ridiculously ignorant to state that being 'green' is not cost effective. As someone who has had a solar system for 7+ years, I can tell you it's paid for itself already (with an estimated 13 more years before needing serious upkeep), has kept me away from the 40-50% rate raises that have happened to others in that time, it heats my house, my shower, and my hot tub and keeps the lights, TV, washer/drier, dishwasher, and fridge on when the grid goes down. It's not at all the expensive, powerless, sacrifice forcing technology you seem to think it is. It saves money even in the short term, and significant amounts in the long term AND has many other benefits. You've been listening to the wrong people about this issue, people who either totally don't know what they're talking about or are bold faced liars. I speak from actual experience.
Cost effective 'green' technologies have existed for well over a decade. You are simply wrong about your estimations.

> "Sorry, once again you're completely wrong and making shit up."

No, you are wrong and making things up.

> "I never said any of that at all."

You never said any of what you wrote?

> "I challenge you to prove me wrong"

Yes, you are wrong.

> "D'OH!"

What's that all about? Homer Simpson or something?

> "I came back for more because you bold faced lied about me in a public
> thread"

Did not.

> "Why have you continued to come back for more time and time again after at
> least 3 times stating you were 'bored'"

Because you are entertaining. You do get boring here and there, true, but stuff like the "move to Somalia" that's entertaining.

> "you didn't read most of my posts"

I read some of your replies, even if I don't take them seriously.

> "'done with this thread'"

Did I say that? (to paraphrase that cop, if Obama can say we are out of Iraq and then come back, why can't I?)

> "(proving you a liar)"

No, you're the liar.

> "I think most of those following this thread have seen which of us is wrong,
> angry, and frustrated, and it ain't me buddy."

I don't know who is or isn't following the thread, and I don't really care or know if anyone following cares. You obviously do, attention seeker that you are.

> "I feel the need to ask, did you get a number of good temporary tattoos
> before you got that 'diploma'? (It sure is seeming more and more like you got
> it from a Cracker Jack box, your complete lack of reading comprehension
> makes it seem unlikely you could have 'earned' one)"

This is the kind of ridiculous statement that makes you "funny." Keep it up.

Oh man...I feel bad you just went on an angry tirade because you saw what you wanted to read and NOT what I wrote.

Derp...I didn't say let's forget the civilians. I said...that "nobody blames INNOCENT civilians so let's move past that" (i.e. let's not assume anyone is blaming civilians, or at least...Im certainly not).

Derp...I said that equivalency is irrelevant not that there IS equivalency. I said that the problem is that there IS an equation. When there is an equation there is an automatic need to balance it which equals more deaths down the road. THE PROBLEM is that people are dying and it needs to stop.

Why does that make you angry senor Caps and Bold? Why is the statement that death is bad and it needs to stop a problem?

Without reading and understanding what I wrote you automatically categorized me as a "hardliner." Then to further 'discredit' me you took a visual trait (my red P) and further categorized me in order to mock my statements and garner public support against my statements.

Its scary how easy and subconscious it is to create a reviled OTHER, which is Ironic considering the issue.

Anyway.... My only central point is and has been that Hamas and the Israeli elite directing the conflict are both to blame...they are both perpetuating the conflict throughout the decades in the best ways they can.

Why does saying that they are both to blame for the violence make me a hardliner? For who exactly? For people who understand that taking sides is stupid. Yes. And why does it spawn such vitriolic responses?

How can you not blame Hamas....How can you not blame Israeli elites?

Killing needs to stop. Humanitarian issues need to be fixed. Simple. Wooo such a hardliner.

Uhhh yeah, a slap from a lady (or the smallest guy in this viddy) may simply make Payback here a bit jocular or perhaps horned-up or at worse, just get him going....and if I saw a cat this built go at woman being as short, stout and slower nowadays as I am.....be goin' for some hamstrings with good steel or using some powered device of some sort to intervene-Not that I'd really wanna even ever even have to do something as bold-faced and silly :0

I'm not trying to be a hater, but I do want people to get what they deserve...and in this instance I believe those that ignore and deny that AGW is real and in part their fault (and every thing I read and all actual scientists I talk to agree that nearly ALL scientists agree that AGW is real and happening now, contrary to your claim that only 4% agree) deserve to have their offspring eat them alive when the food runs out due to their denial based actions.
Really, you claim you personally spoke to "most climate scientists"?!? So now I know for certain that YOU are just a bold faced liar, because that's an impossibility. ;-)
But I already did my hair and put my party dress on, I'm crashing your party! I'll hide among the other scientists and you'll never notice me until the lampshade hat goes on and I climb onto the bar to dance badly to Bolero.
I am 100% certain that either you or Obama has made a mistake here...4% is an exaggeration of the number of scientists that DON'T theorize that AGW is real, not the other way around. Someone got the wires crossed.
It's a poor argument, when presented with facts that are contrary to your theory, to reply with 'who cares what you think'...but perhaps the best argument against my statements that you have?
I do walk to work, in my own yard. I have a vegi garden and an orchard. I do eat mostly just my own vegis, but not completely, there's also chicken and pork that I don't raise myself (but source locally). My beef intake is miniscule. I drive minimally, well under 5K per year (still adding to the problem, agreed, but far less than average), I don't have children (the best and most useful thing one can do for the massively overpopulated planet IMO) and try at every opportunity to convince others to not have them either, I do have solar panels AND hot water tubes, I do grow >90% of my (and my wife's) food. Most of those things I do because they save me money, because as I said, I have no personal incentive to "save the planet" for more than 40+- years, and I also don't think it's possible at this point. I can try to not add to the problem as much as possible, but at the same time I don't let my methods rule or ruin my life. It's my opinion that the time to minimize AGW was in the 80's, when it was completely ignored, and that now it's far too late to minimize things, the system reacts slowly and the last century of CO2 (and others) will continue to effect the system long after we stop adding more...and I think we're already to the point where that unavoidable rise in temp will melt methalhydrates, giving us boiling oceans on fire and at least another 5 deg of near instant temperature rise (likely far more). The tipping point was back when we could avoid that, and I have been convinced by data that that time came and went long ago and now we're hosed.
I will concede that the ONN is a GREAT place for 'news'.

You are correct, I did not go to your link. In the past they have consistently been un-scientific right wing propaganda sites masquerading as science or news, so I don't bother anymore.
As has been pointed out, May to October IS winter in the south. What's ignored is that the reason the ice MAY have not melted as fast last summer in the North is that the heat that normally sits on the pole moved south and cause our heat waves all summer (well, yours, it stayed 70deg here). What was ignored was that it also didn't freeze as fast this winter because the cold that normally sits there was also moved south, causing our harsh winter. If you counted the entire year, it shrank....again....like it has for the last 20+ years.
One tiny incomplete data set is not climate. One season in one place is not a full data set. In the last decade, the trend has been for polar ice to melt FAR faster than it re-freezes, to the point of allowing a North West Passage and a lack of pack ice that's eroding the northern tundra.
It's way easier to have a significant increase AFTER there was a larger significant decrease in ice. It's no where near normal levels, even if your link is correct that this one season it increased (and I think it's likely either wrong or you misinterpreted it).
Science has said for decades that the polar ice will melt, and it is doing so. Your contention that it's increasing it asinine in my view, and flies in the face of over 100 articles I've read that said the exact opposite.
I did the most important thing a person can do to slow the rate of increase of climate change, I didn't have children. (you are correct, your ilk has denied the issue long enough that no one can stop climate change, it's happening now and will get worse for the next 100+ years even if we stopped adding CO2 today) That means as long as the food lasts another 40 years, I'm good and screw the rest of you. I also see the futility of petitioning the government or populace to get off their ass and stop screwing up the planet, that time came and went in the 70-80's, it's FAR too late to fix the problem, and some like you still sit back and say 'there's no issue to fix'. I only hope you have children that will blame you when they can't eat or drink anymore because of lack of food and water.

For some, everything is a 'debate' about 'state control' because that's all they think about.
You are wrong, most climate scientists are clearly in the 'climate change is happening and it's man made' camp, I've never met one that wasn't, and I know hundreds of scientists. The right wing has you by the brain banana and you would rather believe your party than science, because science wont' just tell you what you want to hear. To me that's sad and dangerous.
4%! Whoever told you that was a bold faced liar.

Simple observations based on available data-That rabbits' fat enough for a stew pot or breading...Rodents or livestock in the house are for food, shooin',or garments, projects for youngsters or research science...Y'know, shavin' prior to implants or what not??

"Baxter: The new, bold fragrance for red eyes."

I'm kiddin', kiss yer best friend on the nose,may he reward you with tiny pellets behind the furniture

My logic fallible and my reasoning skills cumbersome?? Read more.

You'd cook him if you had to and you know it.
I could make him taste better though...

What is his 'doctorate' in? It can't possibly be math or science. He doesn't understand either.
'I could buffalo a student, but for the first time I began to listen to my own explanation'....just OMG, so as a professor, you never paid attention to the object of study you taught! Ooooooooooh...long Johnson!
"most of them are fully formed organisms in their own right"....so let's ignore ALL those that aren't and say they never existed. What a buffoon!
This is the shining example of a 'scientist' that learned about 'creationism' and 'converted'...the problem being he wasn't a scientist (certainly not a good one that followed the scientific method), and he obviously knew about creationism before his conversation with the student (or was even more dense than he appears). This means he's a bold faced liar, like most proselytizers, that minimizes other ways of thinking and/or facts while maximizing 'belief'. Duh!
There is no 'conversion' possible, as science is not analogous to religion, the only conversion possibly would be one of his thought process, from a thinking person willing to examine reality and willing to be wrong (which it seems he never was) to one willing to believe mythos without (or contrary to) evidence.

I love people who are willing and able to stand up for a stranger. Their boldness and kindness always tends to choke me up a little.

Good for him for keeping his word, but it's going to cost him in the end. This guy does NOT want to be in jail. I'm wondering if this act just ended a prosecution of an actual criminal though.
If the judge insisted on having the information, there was likely a reason for that...perhaps the 'tipster' was a cop himself? Perhaps it was impossible that the 'tipster' actually had the information they gave? I can think of many reasons why the 'tip' needed to be investigated, especially if it was the reason for a warrant or other police actions.
For example...in the 70's, a family member was arrested for marijuana cultivation in Texas based on a 'tip'. It turned out the tipster was a neighbor that had no real knowledge of the grow, only assumption, but the cops were so stupid they didn't get a warrant and my family member was released. If they had not been able to investigate the 'tipster', the BS the cops claimed, that they were allowed to enter the property because of (well, I can't recall the actual reason they gave, I was only about 7, but they gave one that was BS) may have been believed...only the record of the actual 'tip' proved them to be bold faced liars in court.

Oh yeah and umm, Obamas' a fucking bold-faced liar, the shittiest tier of his so-called health care plan is about 70% higher than
the average cell phone bill and the money he wasted on this bullshit propaganda piece considering the entourage protecting his ass and the travel expenses for all involved could have probably paid for a thousand uninsured peep's medical expenses. Fuck that waste of resources ya buncha fawning, dick-riding cretins.