>> ^grinter:

? What does a carbon atom's asshole look like?
...sorry, but I was actually confused when I read your post.
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> bamdrew said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="/avatars/b/bamdrew-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box"> "... we can see fucking carbon atom's, asshole... you're deluding people for profit"
</div></div></div>

Look for the comma...

>> ^bamdrew:

"... we can see fucking carbon atom's, asshole... you're deluding people for profit"


? What does a carbon atom's asshole look like?
...sorry, but I was actually confused when I read your post.

Your video, CBC thoroughly deconstructs homeopathy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'll agree with that one too, *eia.
>> ^TheSofaKing:

People stupid enough to believe and rely on this nonsense instead of real medicine.... even for their children? eia ?

>> ^radx:

Have you considered using a playlist of both parts? Or since the second part is out of sync, maybe this one?


I meant to include part 2, but somehow forgot it. Thanks for finding that embed. It's much better than a playlist, so I swapped to it.

>> ^eric3579:

Part Two

EDIT - Beat me to it.

Some of the people in this video are definitely telling *lies.

>> ^TheSofaKing:

lies ???

@Bidouleroux

I was referring to this in particular:

"On the other hand atheists are always on neutral. If new scientific evidence challenge their worldview, they'll just say "well, my experience of the world is the same, but my understanding of that experience must change".

I just take issue with the suggestion that atheists are generally more capable of that sort of self-examination, reflection and honest deconstruction of their own ideas, sentiments and preconceptions. To be an atheist is to maintain a rational position about the validity of religion and/or the existence of a divinity, but that doesn't necessarily reflect a greater rationality or intellectual maturity. I'd like for it to, but I've found people to be quite disappointing regardless of their religious or irreligious inclinations.

That's pretty much all I'm getting at. Have I neglected your actual meaning?

The Academy didn't get it wrong. American media has a heavy stake in propagating the mafia mystique and the Academy is really just a big advertising firm for Hollywood. American filmmakers brought us "The Godfather" trilogy, "Goodfellas", "The Sopranos", and the like. True, these are stories about American criminals as opposed to Italian, but the propaganda is the same: mobsters may be cruel, but they're people, too, just like you and me, if not more interesting people. So again, the Academy didn't get it wrong. They know where their bread is buttered and it's not in deconstructing the mafia hero myth.

>> ^VoodooV:

I'm all for the deconstruction of Christmas. Christ isn't the center of Christmas. Money is the center of Christmas...retail sales, profits from traveling, stampeding other consumers for tickle me elmo, etc.
I thought the founders were christian..it's just that being christian back then didn't mean the same thing it means now. There was actually this ability to separate common sense and reason from faith, an ability we apparently lack now.
But all that said. Speaking for myself as an agnostic. This idea that apparently we are so fragile now that we can't tolerate saying "Merry Christmas" and now have to say "Seasons Greetings" or some other PC nonsense is absolute baloney IMO. I am not offended when someone is overtly Christian around me. I don't recall ever being traumatized by saying "under God" when reciting the pledge of allegiance as a kid.
PC faux sensitivity is a load of bull. Let people say Merry Christmas.


It's not non-Christians whinging when they go into a store and the clerk says merry christmas to them, it's Christians whining when they go into a store and the clerk says happy holidays. No-one is being forced to say happy holidays, it's the christians trying to force people to say merry christmas.

I'm all for the deconstruction of Christmas. Christ isn't the center of Christmas. Money is the center of Christmas...retail sales, profits from traveling, stampeding other consumers for tickle me elmo, etc.

I thought the founders were christian..it's just that being christian back then didn't mean the same thing it means now. There was actually this ability to separate common sense and reason from faith, an ability we apparently lack now.

But all that said. Speaking for myself as an agnostic. This idea that apparently we are so fragile now that we can't tolerate saying "Merry Christmas" and now have to say "Seasons Greetings" or some other PC nonsense is absolute baloney IMO. I am not offended when someone is overtly Christian around me. I don't recall ever being traumatized by saying "under God" when reciting the pledge of allegiance as a kid.

PC faux sensitivity is a load of bull. Let people say Merry Christmas.

>> ^dag:

I would say no. It's an adaptation of our brains that makes us better hunter gatherers but that's it.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Here is something to chew on, is color an actual property of light, or a property of minds. IE, does color exist outside of minds as a real property.



I agree, completely>> ^BoneRemake:

Its like that question about a tree falling in the Forrest, you don't have to experience the light to know it is made up of the different bands.


Right, it could be shown that light has different wavelengths outside of a minds ability to understand it. But it isn't necessary that light wavelengths be colorful; the visual experience of 475 nm isn't necessarily blue more than it is the flavor strawberry. It is perhaps a trivial distinction for some, but minds are very interesting me.

I think I am approaching a logical construct that would also deconstruct space and time in the same fashion as color. Now, just have to construct the ACTUAL reality...no problem

Wow. Brilliant. I love how he deconstructs a whole genre of standup.

I really don't see the point of deconstructing something like this. Guy with a katana sliced a baseball.

Ranting about how the feat isn't noteworthy, or how any old grandmother could do it, doesn't enhance the experience or contribute anything except a feeling of being exposed to a Nigel No-Friends. Yeah, yeah, the ball slicing is probably no big deal, but it's cool to watch and if you're so Goddamned antsy about it, send someone on the sift a video of you doing the same thing.

"...profit is the signal which tells us what we must do in order to serve people whom we do not know..."

So only through data from profit, economic success, can we determine the success of something. A doctor that makes money is a good doctor even his patients aren't healed. Or a farmer that makes money is a good farmer even if he grows unhealthy food.

But wait, it's people we do not know. A so called “extended society" where “... we all working for people we do not know and are being supported by people we do not know...”. Who are these people we do not know? Are they off the census or do they live underground in the sewers? How many people don't know their boss, or the company they where they work? I can trace almost anything I buy. Sellers, distributors, transporters, manufacturers, and even the farmers and miners are findable. Look at the lot numbers on an object and you can trace it's history with some work.

I understand that Hayek is taking the epistemological limits and applying them to economics and his “people we don't know” is a representation of the unknown beyond limits of human knowledge. But his fundamental basis is false. An economy is not beyond human understanding. It is not divine power that provides by magic our wants and needs. They economy is made of real people and real stuff.

Maybe later I'll deconstruct Hayek's assertion that “... socialism assumes that all available knowledge can be used by a single central authority.”