By whole milk do you mean 3% or 4% milk fat or is whole milk that homogenized stuff. I do not buy milk very much and its usually the 2% for my breads.

Yea its aboot time I broke out the Crepe pan.

Thanks for the recipe BTW.

Quite enjoying these, they remind me how homogenized some other franchises have become with their marketing.

An excellent question. The answer is, Japan has a religion, and that religion is Japan itself (nationalism). Yes, Shinto is there, but AFAIK, it's mostly ceremonial.

The Japanese have a very strong family-oriented culture with clearly defined roles and a nearly homogenous society. They also have a concept of honor unheard of in the West. Disgracing one's family name by stealing or rioting would be inexcusable.

Unfortunately, the Japanese are, IMO, still too trusting of authority in times of crisis.

I never claimed that Christianity is the only way to instill values, but because a tenet of generic Christianity is that it's the "ONLY" way, I can see why one might think so.

When God is "killed" the State becomes God, and a murderous one at that. The only majority atheist countries spared mass slaughter have traditionally religious cultures or strict cultural values. Right now England has neither, and because the population is unarmed, they are subjects of the crown, not citizens.


>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^quantumushroom:
I agree with this guy 99%. He is not a cock. Of course, watching an atheist angered by a lack of morality in the populace is hilarious. People didn't regularly act this way 40 years ago. What changed?
Not everyone proclaiming to be a Christian follows Thou shalt not steal all the time, but more of them have values than the ones raised with....NOTHING.
Sorry Atheists, without those funny Bible stories/sermons/morality plays, you have no vehicle to deliver your values, which oddly mirror Christian values in so many ways.

Riots don't happen in Japan, either--a country where less than 1% of the population is Christian. Don't you think the Japanese have 1000 times more reasons to riot than these guys? Many people in the tsunami hit areas are still living in school gyms, without air conditioning in 90+ degree weather. They have no work, no homes, and not a whole lot of hope. Meanwhile, a 20km radius in Fukushima is uninhabitable and will likely remain that way for the foreseeable future. The people who used to live there are basically homeless--they can't claim insurance on their homes because technically their homes haven't been destroyed. And it's not just people in northern Japan that are being affected--radioactive food is "accidentally" getting through inspections and being consumed by the general populace.
Most have never heard of the ten commandments here. 80% of the population are atheist. Yet there are no riots, no looting, no violent demonstrations. People are angry, but they are working peacefully towards solutions to the problems through grassroots campaigns. So my question for you is, how do you reconcile these facts with your belief that only Christianity can instill morality in people?

This is why income isn't distributed homogeneously across the population.

Ugh. Ok:



Population group A has a lower than replacement level reproduction rate.
Population group B has a higher than replacement level reproduction rate and benefits from an unlimited external source of replenishment.
The outcome is that over time, group A will cease to exist.
As it happens, some individuals in group A may be displeased about their upcoming extinction.


Human beings of whatever colour of skin can make babies with one another. Therefore: AB+A+B , not either A or B. This is not how it works. Also your group B cannot have unlimited external source of replenishment. Even with a huge outside source of replenishment, it will all work out as a nice intercultural mix, as it is right now: the letters we use are latin, the numerals arabic. Cultures are all already mixed.
It is not "us" versus "them", It is "us" with "them." What your ideological fear of a "civilisation going extinct" implies, is that you are a racist. Maybe just a cultural racist, but a racist nonetheless. Now to the really stupid stuff:

Unlike most media sources who immediately suspected Muslim involvement, I waited for more facts to emerge before making assumptions. That is not the action of a "racist" as you would define one.

Very good, had nothing to do with why I called you a racist, and you are right, it would not be a reason to call you a racist. But it does not negate your racist comments of basically agreeing with a mass-murderer that Muslims, or group B as you like to call them, will end our "civilisation."


My admission is that his reasoning is sound, his concerns legitimate and his motivations worthy of study.

His reasoning is not sound, his concerns are bonkers and his motivation is worthy of study for psychiatrists. If you like, present one of his mad theories you agree with and watch it being ripped apart by every kind of reasonable person (non-fascists and non-racists) there is. Now for the best bit:

As for DerHasisttot's logical pretzel. I'm sure he is the type of fellow that would mobilize government in defense of an endangered species of duck, but yet finds the mild concept that a civilization wishes to maintain its existence is morally wrong. Shame on him.


Let's reverse the roles ad absurdum and relish in the brilliant irony of your preface "logical pretzel": "I'm sure pprt is the type of person X, who would rather Z than Y! Shame on him!." So, you assume I am a specific type of person, assume how I would act in a certain situation, then assume how I would act in a different type of situation that goes against your ideology; and you follow with the (in your mind logical) conclusion that shame should be thrust upon me. Dude, you are shaming your own fiction.

But: Yes I would ask the nature conservatory of my government to protect an endangered species. The second part of your assumptional assault is of course: bonkers. I do not think it is ethnically wrong for anyone to remain alive. And I am not against museums, where one can look at relics of previous "civilisations." But: Cultures are in flux. Cultures are NOT static. Even North Korean culture cannot resist every western influence. In 200 years, no culture we know today will still exist. They will not have been killed by muslims like you want to believe in your racist mind. They will just evolve, move on, adapt and MIX. Every culture is mixed and NOT a homogenous entity.

This is a more useful issue to tackle than his previous video. People can disagree about which of FPP/av/proportional feels better, but they all produce policy results in line with the wishes of the median voter.

Gerrymandering on the other hand is strangling our government in the US. Legislators have crafted such safe seats for themselves that they are now beholden to homogenous and often extremist constituencies. Thus they have little incentive to compromise. Congress hasn't passed a budget in 3 years, and now is running us scarily close to fiscal catastrophe. We may all lose our jobs if they tank the economy, but their districts are safe for life.

I'm a fan of the independent commissions. We've had good results in the past decade letting retired politicians with no future ambitions and generous pensions work out sensible recommendations on a variety of issues. I'll be interested to see how it works for California and any other states who try this route.

@SDGundamX

There's clearly no point in arguing with you; you insist on attacking strawmen that you project as Harris' arguments and mine, disregard the statistical evidence (some of which could already be found in my html-mess post), refuse to comprehend that an ideology that regards women as only half as worthy of men - and that puts such high stakes on "purity" - will result in violence towards them, and continue to see things in an all-or-nothing way while accusing your opponents thereof and, cherry on the cake, provide the answer to your own arguments within them; I quote:

Radical fundamentalist Islam most certainly causes its followers to not just condone violence, but believe that violence is the only way to achieve the political aims for which radical Islam was created to achieve.

See this video on how it is not the fundamentalists that are a problem, but the fundamentals (thus the Qur'an quoting you keep disregarding). You keep trying to make it about some sort of homogeneous group called "the Muslims" that we are - according to you - unilaterally vilifying, but that only shows that the person who has a problem generalising is yourself.

If we were 700 years ago, Harris and the other "gnu atheists" would be arguing strongly against Christianity's effects on people's lives, not Islam's (not that Islam was any better, but it was hardly much worse).

You want evidence so badly? Why don't you go ask the Pakistani cops why they feel they have the right to rape and physical abuse their female visitors, see where that gets you.

The Pakistan vs. India stats come from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Pakistan

The sound reminds me of Einsturzende Neubauten...

Also kind of a homogenized version of SRL, which no one has sifted yet. O_o

What you claim is 'craziness' is merely your own mental unhappiness over the existence of a dissenting perspective in a cable news universe that is otherwise homogenously oriented towards slavishly mirroring your own personal bias. Quite literally, FOX is a fly in your ideological ointment and its existence irks you. Rather than seek to dismiss it, you should welcome it as a much needed counterbalance to a milquetoast news industry that all too often does nothing but circle-jerk around a single opinion.


Look, the problem is not that there is a different opinion out there, the problem is that FOX is not, as it were just a different opinion, its a network of dishonesty. Its lying and distorting facts, it denies and undercuts reality itself, All while claiming to be the "fair and balanced" alternative. This isnt about right or left "perspectives" but about basic journalistic integrity, and basic respect for the truth. We see it again and again, FOX spews out some insinuating shit, and then gets debunked by other networks, but instead of acknowldging their mistakes and take steps to correct them, they keep up their lies.

FOX , for example, started the birther movement, the "Obama is a muslim" movement, and the tea party(based on the fictional idea that the original tea-party opposed taxes. They didnt, they opposed taxes to a foreign country). In addition, they keep fuelling lies about global warming ie: "climategate" consisting of a few misunderstood emails between scientists. This isnt journalism, this isnt "opposing views" this is dishonesty. and if it happened once or twice, you could blame sloppiness or mistakes, or maybe a biased reporter or two, but with FOX it is symptomatic and systematic.

Try finding comparable examples on Olberman or Maddow, you wont. Because while they are opinionated, biased and crtical, they also care about the facts, they actually try to put things in its proper contexts and strive for honesty.

You must be fun at parties.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

That study is from 2005, and FOX has climbed quite a few steps on the crazy-ladder since then
Research says otherwise. The News channels have not become more radical, but the AUDIENCES have become more polarized.
http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-polit
icized
So your assertion is merely an opinion, not documented fact. I have been around a long time, including since 2005, and there has been no perceptable widening of the gap in bias between MSNBC or FOX News as cable channels.
Secondly this was an American study. From the outside, to the rest of the world, FOX and its fans look like bewildered extremists with little or no idea what goes on outside their own, largely imaginary, world.
There is no research study or scholarly document that supports your assertion. You may believe this is fact, but that does not make you correct. You are citing anecdotal evidence from among your group of friends and associates. You clearly tilt to the left in your political opinions, and so it is not surprising your friends & associates agree with you. However - your universe of interactions is not statistically representative of larger populations, and so your opinion must be dismissed as non-factual. The same applies to your opinions about AGW, and other issues about which you opine, but do not document. In other words - you're acting like FOX News and stating opinion as fact. For shame.
Your insinuations that I'm some sort of brainwashed leftist is very strange.
I didn't say that. I said you're a leftist, and that you slant your opinions that direction. That much is obvious. I'm clearly conservative, and I tilt that direction. There is nothing wrong in admitting your propensities and predilictions.
We don't really have partisan lines like that
No offense - but bull feathers. European parlimentarian politics is some of the most partisan, fractous, splintered, and contentous that exist on the planet. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the UN doesn't have partisan lines either. :eyeroll:
Anyway - the fact remains that FOX News is not as 'radical' as you claim. You are probably talking very specifically with people like Glenn Beck in your mind. I'm not trying to tell you that Beck isn't out there. But Ed Schultz is 'out there' too. I dismiss your false appeals to authority as a fallacy, and rest on the proof of research. Most news outlets are predominantly liberal in bias. FOX News is conservative in bias. But FOX is not some sort of radical outlier except in the fact that it isn't slavishly biased to the left like everyone else.
What you claim is 'craziness' is merely your own mental unhappiness over the existence of a dissenting perspective in a cable news universe that is otherwise homogenously oriented towards slavishly mirroring your own personal bias. Quite literally, FOX is a fly in your ideological ointment and its existence irks you. Rather than seek to dismiss it, you should welcome it as a much needed counterbalance to a milquetoast news industry that all too often does nothing but circle-jerk around a single opinion.

That study is from 2005, and FOX has climbed quite a few steps on the crazy-ladder since then

Research says otherwise. The News channels have not become more radical, but the AUDIENCES have become more polarized.

http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-politicized

So your assertion is merely an opinion, not documented fact. I have been around a long time, including since 2005, and there has been no perceptable widening of the gap in bias between MSNBC or FOX News as cable channels.

Secondly this was an American study. From the outside, to the rest of the world, FOX and its fans look like bewildered extremists with little or no idea what goes on outside their own, largely imaginary, world.

There is no research study or scholarly document that supports your assertion. You may believe this is fact, but that does not make you correct. You are citing anecdotal evidence from among your group of friends and associates. You clearly tilt to the left in your political opinions, and so it is not surprising your friends & associates agree with you. However - your universe of interactions is not statistically representative of larger populations, and so your opinion must be dismissed as non-factual. The same applies to your opinions about AGW, and other issues about which you opine, but do not document. In other words - you're acting like FOX News and stating opinion as fact. For shame.

Your insinuations that I'm some sort of brainwashed leftist is very strange.

I didn't say that. I said you're a leftist, and that you slant your opinions that direction. That much is obvious. I'm clearly conservative, and I tilt that direction. There is nothing wrong in admitting your propensities and predilictions.

We don't really have partisan lines like that

No offense - but bull feathers. European parlimentarian politics is some of the most partisan, fractous, splintered, and contentous that exist on the planet. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the UN doesn't have partisan lines either. :eyeroll:

Anyway - the fact remains that FOX News is not as 'radical' as you claim. You are probably talking very specifically with people like Glenn Beck in your mind. I'm not trying to tell you that Beck isn't out there. But Ed Schultz is 'out there' too. I dismiss your false appeals to authority as a fallacy, and rest on the proof of research. Most news outlets are predominantly liberal in bias. FOX News is conservative in bias. But FOX is not some sort of radical outlier except in the fact that it isn't slavishly biased to the left like everyone else.

What you claim is 'craziness' is merely your own mental unhappiness over the existence of a dissenting perspective in a cable news universe that is otherwise homogenously oriented towards slavishly mirroring your own personal bias. Quite literally, FOX is a fly in your ideological ointment and its existence irks you. Rather than seek to dismiss it, you should welcome it as a much needed counterbalance to a milquetoast news industry that all too often does nothing but circle-jerk around a single opinion.

>> ^Yogi:

Bill Maher's comment about people who don't get the joke (Fuck Them) is basically how I feel about new tv shows today. Monty Pythons Flying Circus was one of the best shows ever created...yet if it was being piloted today, it would be shot down by one stupid executive out of thousands reviewing it with a hard on for power and shutting things down.
The TV business is now an inverted pyramid...with a lot of bullshit suits at the top with very little talent at the bottom making watered down all inclusive bullshit shows for morons. Sometimes some quality sneaks through like Community...but even good shows like Modern Family are looking homogenized and "Cosbyish" in some episodes.
You don't like a new interesting TV show? You don't get the jokes they're throwing? Look in a mirror and say "Fuck You" and leave people alone.


EXACTLY... and that is why I don't have TV service. It is just a pile of crap put together to keep the mindless in their mindless state, broadcast commercials to keep corporations rich, and to feed establishment propaganda to the masses to keep them mentally in-line with the status-quo.

Olbermann went up against the status-quo and criticized the government. That is why he is going off the air. That is why he was 'let go'.

Bill Maher's comment about people who don't get the joke (Fuck Them) is basically how I feel about new tv shows today. Monty Pythons Flying Circus was one of the best shows ever created...yet if it was being piloted today, it would be shot down by one stupid executive out of thousands reviewing it with a hard on for power and shutting things down.

The TV business is now an inverted pyramid...with a lot of bullshit suits at the top with very little talent at the bottom making watered down all inclusive bullshit shows for morons. Sometimes some quality sneaks through like Community...but even good shows like Modern Family are looking homogenized and "Cosbyish" in some episodes.

You don't like a new interesting TV show? You don't get the jokes they're throwing? Look in a mirror and say "Fuck You" and leave people alone.

Your argument doesn't undermine my statement. Yes, God-Kings and such ruled by divine right, and for much of history this worked, to the point even the Devil-Kings got sh!t done. Yet unlike the Statist oppressors of recent history, the God-King could not easily change traditions like s/he did mere laws.

These "atheist" countries of late are an historical eyeblink, typically small with homogeneous populations and cultural values forged by religion. When they forget their god(s) completely they'll be ripe for conquest.

It doesn't matter whether you or I support or condemn religion, that's how it's always been.


>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
This is how it's been my friend.
Don't bother mentioning those cases in history where Emperors/Kings were godheads by divine right and worshiped as the human embodiments of God on Earth, because that would like, totally undermine your argument and stuff.
"Remove Zeus---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it." - Quantomos Mushromolis, 400 BC

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Thanks for the promote, homeslice!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
fuck this first year poli-sci douchebag!
*promote!

just trying to keep the homogenized-vanilla-cookie-cutter message we find on the sift balanced with an opposing idea/view/philosophy.
without challenging preconceived ideologies people become complacent in their own righteousness.
and i say==FUCK THAT SHIT.