What a nice thing to say, thank you! I really like both of your portmanteus...I think avaTARTs flows well!
Your screen name is kickass too, always wanted to say. (That includes you, Jive mitten.) I just read the other day how apple seeds have cyanide in them. Oooo.
It's warm fuzzy death day, I guess, heh.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
It was partially inspired by your awesome avARTars/avatARTS (which one is better?). Saw some of his work for the first time recently, and loved the idea of that dark juxtaposed with the cuddly.
In reply to this comment by AdrianBlack:
I love your new avatar, I'm a big fan of his work. Something so charming about blood and fuzz.

Hey man, what's wrong with these jive turkeys? These cats ain't hep at all! Don't pay them no never mind, dig?

>> ^Chaucer:

actually, if you want closely, he doesnt kick the bird like he's trying to kill or hurt it. Soccer players will know a move called 'lofting the soccer ball'. Basically, you are trying to get the ball into the air at your location. If he was trying to kill the bird, he would have kicked it and the bird would have just rolled along the ground. Instead the see the owl take a very vertical trajectory. This would jive with his story that he was trying to get the bird in the air to make it fly away.
He still shouldnt have done what he did though because there are to many idiots out there which would misunderstand the situation and make a big deal out of it.
On a side note that you guys also seem to be forgetting is that owls are very dangerous. They have insanely sharp claws and sharp beaks. I wouldnt want to touch an owl that is confused and have it tear my hand off.
The owl likely died from being hit by the soccer ball which was likely moving much faster than his foot.

Horseshit. You don't kick a clearly injured animal unless you want to hurt it more. I can't imagine any circumstance in which I would think "This creature might need my help. I will, therefore, kick it". But then again, I'm not a fucking idiot fucking brainless footballer.

actually, if you want closely, he doesnt kick the bird like he's trying to kill or hurt it. Soccer players will know a move called 'lofting the soccer ball'. Basically, you are trying to get the ball into the air at your location. If he was trying to kill the bird, he would have kicked it and the bird would have just rolled along the ground. Instead the see the owl take a very vertical trajectory. This would jive with his story that he was trying to get the bird in the air to make it fly away.

He still shouldnt have done what he did though because there are to many idiots out there which would misunderstand the situation and make a big deal out of it.

On a side note that you guys also seem to be forgetting is that owls are very dangerous. They have insanely sharp claws and sharp beaks. I wouldnt want to touch an owl that is confused and have it tear my hand off.

The owl likely died from being hit by the soccer ball which was likely moving much faster than his foot.

Most welcome.
In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Thanks, mate!

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
*quality

Thanks, mate!

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
*quality

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Charlie-Brown-cartoon-dubbed-in-Jive

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by dystopianfuturetoday. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

>> ^bmacs27:

If you've got me pegged as a creationist/ID proponent, you've got me pegged wrong. I specifically said, filling gaps in knowledge with divine intervention is obviously not valid. My point is simply that many who claim ID is unfalsifiable also claim irreducible complexity as impossible to demonstrate you might open evolution up to the same criticism. I don't really care what side I argue for, I'm just interested in hearing a hire level of debate. Frankly, I didn't want to talk about logical fallacies, I wanted to talk about biochemical processes, like opsin barrels, and energy barriers. That shit is dope.
Now, the real problem here is that what we mean by "evolution" is a moving target. It's so broad it's meaningless. In many ways "Darwinian evolution" has been falsified hundreds of times, much like Newtonian mechanics. It was wrong in the details. In fact, almost every rule I was ever taught at an elementary level about any sort of obviously falsifiable detail of evolution has turned out to be false in some weird or possibly limited case (e.g. epigenetics smells awfully Lamarckian). Still, we don't say "Darwin was wrong." You can't falsify evolution in the broad sense the same way you can't falsify gravity. At this point it's common sense more than science. It's more like a world view we use to form specific falsifiable theories than a theory itself. It's a world view that has been shown to be extraordinarily enlightening for sure. So much so, that at this point even with that Hippo fossil, I don't think people would change their minds.
That's fine. I just get worried about how far people push the assumption of natural selection (e.g. evolutionary psychology). I feel that there would more constructive arguments resulting from a healthy skepticism about it. I understand that there is a sociopolitical undertone to the whole debate, and I respect that. I just happen to think that those with the better arguments will win (natural selection). So often I see bullshit jive being put forth as reasoned debate, which I think is what happens when ideas gain too much popular acceptance. Thus, I'd like to see an elevated level of debate about the topic. Since you aren't going to get QM to form a coherent paragraph, I might as well be the uke.


Well, you may not remember, but not long ago "gravity" was thought not to exist. It took Galileo to prove without a doubt that it did. Same thing with "evolution": the concept was understood before Darwin (by, among others, Lamarck), but it took Darwin and his idea of natural selection to prove it (with Mendelian genetics being the Newtonian mechanics's analog). Newton said that two mass attract each other, and it still is true today only now we know that it is so because they each form a gravity well. In the same way Darwin said evolution happens by natural selection. I do not know how our understanding of the concept will change (or not, which is possible) in the future, but it will still be recognizable as being that the most fit (adapted) organism in a situation surviving and producing more offspring than the rest. What will change, I think, will be how we define fitness, organism, survival and reproduction. Already, the concept of "meme" shows how broadening some of the terms can lead to new understanding in the psychological realm. If you want to show that Darwin is wrong, then by all means attack natural selection and show us a better mechanism for evolution, the same way Einstein replaced Newtonian mechanics with general relativity. But really, I don't see how talking about biochemical processes will ever falsify natural selection. In fact, I don't even see how a flaw in natural selection could be revealed by some biochemical process: they seem to be on two different levels of abstraction. But if you know of one, then by all means enlighten us.

If you've got me pegged as a creationist/ID proponent, you've got me pegged wrong. I specifically said, filling gaps in knowledge with divine intervention is obviously not valid. My point is simply that many who claim ID is unfalsifiable also claim irreducible complexity as impossible to demonstrate, thus they might open evolution up to the same criticism. I don't really care what side I argue for, I'm just interested in hearing a higher level of debate. Frankly, I didn't want to talk about logical fallacies, I wanted to talk about biochemical processes, like opsin barrels, and energy barriers. That shit is dope.

Now, the real problem here is that what we mean by "evolution" is a moving target. It's so broad it's meaningless. In many ways "Darwinian evolution" has been falsified hundreds of times, much like Newtonian mechanics. It was wrong in the details. In fact, almost every rule I was ever taught at an elementary level about any sort of obviously falsifiable detail of evolution has turned out to be false in some weird or possibly limited case (e.g. epigenetics smells awfully Lamarckian). Still, we don't say "Darwin was wrong." You can't falsify evolution in the broad sense the same way you can't falsify gravity. At this point it's common sense more than science. It's more like a world view we use to form specific falsifiable theories than a theory itself. It's a world view that has been shown to be extraordinarily enlightening for sure. So much so, that at this point even with that Hippo fossil, I don't think people would change their minds.

That's fine. I just get worried about how far people push the assumption of natural selection (e.g. evolutionary psychology). I feel that there would more constructive arguments resulting from a healthy skepticism about it. I understand that there is a sociopolitical undertone to the whole debate, and I respect that. I just happen to think that those with the better arguments will win (natural selection). So often I see bullshit jive being put forth as reasoned debate, which I think is what happens when ideas gain too much popular acceptance. Thus, I'd like to see an elevated level of debate about the topic. Since you aren't going to get QM to form a coherent paragraph, I might as well be the uke.

"How dare you jive-ass motherfuckers take my kid, and all these other..."

@quantumushroom

Really? Reagan? I see you've bought into an incorrect historical narrative, a.k.a myth, that paints Reagan as some sort of conservative/libertarian god. Allow me to type some stuff that you won't believe because you're clearly in some sort of fantasy land, but is true anyway.

The economic model put into place during the Reagan years (supply-side economics) was, to put it bluntly, a one-hit wonder. It worked in that situation, in that time, and it has "worked" pretty well until recently, though its collapse has been fairly inevitable.

Our legal tender law forces everyone to use our governmentt-issued fiat currency. This combined with our fractional reserve banking system is what allows Reaganomics to seem like a good idea. All of our money is debt. If everyone (including the government) paid back all their debt there would be no money. So, when you vastly increase the national debt (defense spending in Reagan's case), there is more money(debt) created. Banks create money(debt) from nothing when someone signs a piece of paper promising to pay the money back with interest. When there's more money(debt) in the system, it's a lot easier to get credit and therefore easier to start businesses, etc. Combine this with low taxes and corporations will invest in factories and such and create jobs.

That's the logic, anyway.

Problem is, the reality of what has actually occurred as a result of supply-side policy is vastly different. The frustrations expressed in this video are a direct result of that. Really, since legal tender law was passed under Nixon, we've had a series of boom/bust failures in our economic system that everyone's pissed about in one way or another. This includes all subsequent administrations regardless of political affiliation.

We can go through all the stuff...the 1987 stock market meltdown, the S&L crisis, the creation of complex speculative financial instruments, the Financial Services Modernization Act...the list goes on. This stuff occurred under Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush again. It's not a Democrat vs. Republican thing. It's not a Right/Left thing. Until you open your mind to realizing that, you're going to be effectively asleep.

Most people don't even know how to express their problem with what's going on economically in our country, and so you have this sort of general anger that's let out in various ways. Tea party, Obama haters, Bush haters, etc. None of that matters, though...none of these (important) social issues like abortion, gun rights, gay rights, etc, really matter until our money system is reconstructed in a way that jives with reality and sustainability.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Airplane - I speak Jive.. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Black Dynamite, HAHA, Fiendish Doctor Wu, you done fucked up now' to 'Black Dynamite, HAHA, Fiendish Doctor Wu, you done fucked up now, jive motherfucker' - edited by Throbbin