I am appalled at some of the responses to this here on the Sift: "she should just take it and shut up", "yeah what's wrong telling someone they're fat" and @scannex's craptacular line of argumentation. This discussion took such a bizarro turn that even bobknight33 has more sense in his comment than a good half of the commenters!

There are several important issues at stake here:

1) Unethical behaviour should be called out, as done here, not silenced/ignored, no matter how "petty" it may seem. Silence (often enforced by shaming and/or interiorised guilt) is one of the main contributors to a culture of abuse of privilege, of bullying, humiliating, harassing, etc etc. I just wish stuff like this (the video) happened more often on TV and in the media in general. The more this kind of behaviour (be it sexist, ableist, bigoted, etc.) is called out as socially unacceptable, the less it will spread over the next generations.

2) Privilege: this guy thinks it is his place to tell a perfect stranger that she's too fat for TV, as if his small-minded opinion was worth anything. Even if it hadn't been so disgustingly condescending, he should know (lets hope that's now the case) that it's not his place to make those remarks. Even if he's a doctor, nutritionist, you name it. He's not her doctor, nor friend, and you have to be pretty fucking stupid to think you're illuminating someone on their hitherto unnoticed BMI, and even more fucking stupid to defend that as "doing her a favour".

3) Obesity is not like smoking. Yes, they are both health problems, but unlike smoking, being obese is not a behaviour. It can be caused/aggravated by certain behaviour, among many other factors. But while a behaviour can be inhibited while in front of others (e.g. not smoking in front of kids/a camera), you cannot "stop being obese". This brings out another distinction, namely that, while seeing people smoke can entice impressionable minds to do the same, seeing someone who is fat will not make one want to be fat as well. Seeing an overweight person on TV having a job or living a normal life might, on the other hand, give hope to people who are mocked and discriminated against for their weight issues, something which does not undermine in the slightest the struggle against obesity.

I could go on, but I've ranted enough as is. Suffice it to say that I fully *support what this woman and her colleagues have taken the courage to do, and hope it is a situation we will see more of in future. We can't (and shouldn't) outlaw douchebaggery, but we sure as hell can make it socially stigmatising, and we damn well should. (and unlike obesity for some, douchebaggery and hateful/hurtful ignorance is something anyone can be cured of)

/rant

The marketing is hyperbolic. That doesn't mean that macs didn't actually get fewer viruses or crash less often than the windows machines of that era. It's annoying when people won't see through the marketing to the truth. It is a better product. It's just not that much better.

This comment on screens is interesting. OLEDs aren't my favorite display technology, although for a mobile (short lifespan, small size) they are probably a good choice. I agree, people should pay more attention to the blackness of blacks, dynamic range, etc. I really like LED backlit TVs for this reason. Even then, the entire room is often illuminated by a screen displaying solid black.

>> ^Quboid:

How black is the IPS screen's black? This is something I never hear discussed yet is more important than the difference between 300 PPI and 330 PPI. An AMOLED screen showing black in a dark room is invisible, as it should be, while my back-lit monitors and TVs throw out almost enough light to read with.

>> ^dag:

Is it really Pepper's Ghost though? The example given in Wikipedia, and the one I've seen in Disney's Haunted Mansion, relied on a room with actual 3-dimensional animitronic figures. This looks to be generated from video - so how is the 3-d effect created? Or is it?

Yes, it's still Pepper's Ghost. Instead of reflecting brightly-illuminated 3D models (like in the Haunted Mansion), a projector simply projects a CG image onto the screen. The 3D effect is illusory, as it's only a 2D image - that is, if you stand to the side of the projection you don't see the side angle of the object, just a flat image.

I look back at that wall of text and realize I've violated a cardinal tenet of discourse: "Seek first to understand before speaking to be understood."
To me, it seems the fundamental point of disagreement deals with when (i.e.: at what stage of pregnancy) a person considers it acceptable to perform an abortion. Knowing that "when" and understanding the "why" of that belief would probably illuminate a great deal of why a given person believes what they do on this issue. So, in the spirit of productive discourse, I pose the following questions (which I will attempt to phrase in neutral language):

Assumption A: I assume we all agree that killing a child already born would be unacceptable under almost any circumstances. Is this assumption correct? (If not, why?)

Assumption B: I assume we all agree that prior to fertilization, individual sperm and eggs are not considered "life", and are largely irrelevant to this discussion. Is this assumption correct? (If not, why?)

The Big Two Questions:
1) Up until what point in a pregnancy (or fetal development) do you consider it acceptable to perform an abortion? (Does this change based on the circumstances?)
2) Why that point?

I've been around for a long long time. And yes, there used to be a lot more science videos with great comments illuminating the video content.

We still see those vids, but not as often.

I don't think that there is anything condescending about stating the truth.

The Sift is still a great place. It has changed some. That is all.

Ok, so some cultural illumination seems like a good idea about now.

A battered sav: A sausage covered in batter then deep fried. The idea here is that the gymnasts penis is a sausage being dipped in batter and/or the method of cooking the battered sav into boiling oil as he drops towards the ground.

Party/crazy date: Date is an anus. The Party/crazy date, when one pivots and spins flashing his date for all to see.

Spinning date: A backflip.

Hello boys: This is where the gymnast opens his legs and seemingly presents his testicles. Onlookers would no doubt say, in the Carry On tradition, "Hello boys".

Flatbag: bag meaning scrotum. Self-explanitory.

A bit of a goose: A goose means a fool. To be "a bit of a goose" means to have done something a little foolish or embarrassing. This is used when the gymnast performs what looks like a goosestep ala Nazi soldiers.

Hope this helps without being condescending.

you should change the title shiny.
it not quite accurate.
the speaker does bring up some great philosophical points.
i agree with him that the greatest question is "what is my purpose or meaning in this life"? and that many become blinded by silly trinkets and the loud circus we are subjected to each and every day.
and i absolutely adored his usage of c.s lewis concerning love,music and art.

this is one of your better posts shiny.the speaker is witty and funny and brings up many philosophical points that we all have to wrangle with.

i have to admit to a few "no..no..NO" that i threw at monitor but all in all this was quite good at illuminating the human question of "why am i here"?

*promote

>> ^PlayhousePals:

That was illuminating to be sure =o)

That was illuminating to be sure =o)

>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.

How can god be a person and a god at the same time? How does a person exist as a god and a human at the same time? Removing the possibility of god being three identical clones and using your model. Logic and physics state that:
1)God is three persons
2)These three people are god
3)They are not duplicates of each other
4)Therefore: There are three separate gods
This all would have been summed up better had someone used better grammar.


Here is a dictionary definition of person

per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" (Shakespeare).

As you can see, Christianity has its own definition. It is referring to, essentially, that everyone in the Godhead shares the same nature or essence, but that they have their own individual personalities. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father but they are both equally God in nature. Not separate Gods, but one God made of three persons. Just like a human father and son are both equally human because they both share that human nature.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.
>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^shinyblurry:

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Wait, so it's a grammatical thing? How did god use improper grammar in the bible?

You could think of it like water..it can be liquid, ice and vapor..but it is still water. That is analogous to the Holy Trinity.

Even in three different states, the same water molecules can't exist in different states at the same time. That's an analogy though. I want to know the true answer. Either it's bad grammar, or how can god be three different things at the same time, when other things can't? What about only worshiping the one true god, when this one is three separate god beings? Why isn't that hypocritical?



Do you mean "persons" like "people?" Of not, what is your definition of a person? If so, if they are people, then it/they/he must sin right? But if so, do they just punish each other for their sins? And if so, do they use paper/rock/scissors? Because I would think that's the most effective way of doing things.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.


How can god be a person and a god at the same time? How does a person exist as a god and a human at the same time? Removing the possibility of god being three identical clones and using your model. Logic and physics state that:
1)God is three persons
2)These three people are god
3)They are not duplicates of each other
4)Therefore: There are three separate gods

This all would have been summed up better had someone used better grammar.

It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.

>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^shinyblurry:

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Wait, so it's a grammatical thing? How did god use improper grammar in the bible?

You could think of it like water..it can be liquid, ice and vapor..but it is still water. That is analogous to the Holy Trinity.

Even in three different states, the same water molecules can't exist in different states at the same time. That's an analogy though. I want to know the true answer. Either it's bad grammar, or how can god be three different things at the same time, when other things can't? What about only worshiping the one true god, when this one is three separate god beings? Why isn't that hypocritical?

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^VoodooV:
Yeah I got no problem with the idea of a creator. There are plenty of science fiction stories that assert the premise that humanity is a created species. But you do have to prove that it exists if you want public policy to be based on a creator, and not only that, you have to prove that this creator agrees with your viewpoint/religion. None of which has been done. God is not an American, nor is he a Republican.
Till then, I'll throw my lot in with things that actually can be demonstrated and repeated.
It's fun to theorize and speculate on what a creator wants, but it really needs to be left out of civilized, adult matters of importance where lives and liberty depend on the outcome.

I wouldn't expect you to believe we should follow biblical morality unless you already believed in the God of the bible. This is what is written:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned
I understand that this country is going in a secular direction, but I think any student of history would have to acknowledge that it has a Christian background, and was founded on those principles. If you want to disagree with that, that's fine, and I am not going to argue the point. It's not really about what our public policy should be, to me. Humanity has been in constant rebellion since the Creation began, and this isn't going to change while we are still allowed to govern ourselves. The nation of Israel, after seeing Moses part the red sea, and countless other miracles, fell into apostasy and worshipped idols during the short time it was waiting for Moses to return from Mt Sinai. It's not about evidence, because He has given it to us. It is that there is no limitation to the wickedness of the human heart. I'll direct you to my previous post for further illumination of this point.


And what you need to acknowledge, sir, as a self-proclaimed student of History is that is that Christianity meant something profoundly different to the Founders than what Christianity is associated with today. So claiming that the founders were Christian and thus America is founded on Christianity is pretty disingenuous. There might be a slight grain of truth to it, but you're willfully disregarding the larger evidence that they knew the dangers of Religion. It's obvious that a human being is going to attempt to govern according to their morals and back then, most people's morals did come from religion and the founders had a wide variety of different religions, so to claim that the nation was founded on Christianity willfully ignores everything else the founders drew upon and is deceitful at best, a sad attempt at a coup at it's worst.

There is a reason why only two commandments are actually laws.

The Constitution is a secular document. The establishment clause is pretty clear on how religion should be treated in regards to our gov't. There's a reason we don't tax church. Gov't doesn't involve itself in Church, therefore the opposite must be true, Church doesn't involve itself in gov't. No taxation...no representation. You can vote your beliefs at the ballot box all you want. More power to you, but you have to do it as an individual. And the Constitution is also pretty clear on what it thinks about the majority taking away minority rights.

With that separation in mind, and getting back to the original topic since you like to tangent. I have zero problem with marriage being a religious institution. You want to be recognized by gov't? Get a civil union. Want to be recognized by god? Get the head of your church to marry you. Since church is a private organization, that's up to them. But there are plenty of churches that do marry gays, so it really is a matter of time before the acceptance of gays becomes universal (we're already at 50 percent and those numbers aren't going to go back down) and there will be enough pressure for even the Vatican to change their stance. They've changed stances before. If not, they'll be left by the wayside like we leave other old and outdated things.

Just because you claim that there is evidence, doesn't make it so. I don't recall ever hearing about any published papers about evidence of a creator in any scientific journals. I would think it would be big news.

Therefore, we're back to square one sir, the burden of proof is on your God. If it wants a Christian gov't, it's going to have to do a lot better than an ancient book that's been translated countless times and has had its meaning changed countless times and portions of it's "morality" are flat out wrong. Not to mention the phenomenon by which people reject the faith when they actually read the bible. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that even you don't agree with stoning and slavery. If you do, then I don't think you and I can continue having a civilized discussion.

You are welcome to your faith, sir, but when you govern a nation of many people of many different faiths and non-faith, you have to have a better standard by which to govern by. The burden is on you to prove that homosexuality infringes on your freedoms and you simply haven't made your case...and you probably never will.

>> ^VoodooV:

Yeah I got no problem with the idea of a creator. There are plenty of science fiction stories that assert the premise that humanity is a created species. But you do have to prove that it exists if you want public policy to be based on a creator, and not only that, you have to prove that this creator agrees with your viewpoint/religion. None of which has been done. God is not an American, nor is he a Republican.
Till then, I'll throw my lot in with things that actually can be demonstrated and repeated.
It's fun to theorize and speculate on what a creator wants, but it really needs to be left out of civilized, adult matters of importance where lives and liberty depend on the outcome.


I wouldn't expect you to believe we should follow biblical morality unless you already believed in the God of the bible. This is what is written:

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

I understand that this country is going in a secular direction, but I think any student of history would have to acknowledge that it has a Christian background, and was founded on those principles. If you want to disagree with that, that's fine, and I am not going to argue the point. It's not really about what our public policy should be, to me. Humanity has been in constant rebellion since the Creation began, and this isn't going to change while we are still allowed to govern ourselves. The nation of Israel, after seeing Moses part the red sea, and countless other miracles, fell into apostasy and worshipped idols during the short time it was waiting for Moses to return from Mt Sinai. It's not about evidence, because He has given it to us. It is that there is no limitation to the wickedness of the human heart. I'll direct you to my previous post for further illumination of this point.