I feel ya on the 'wanted to love this' [I think the Stay Humans muddied it up ... just can't warm up to them] but I decided to post it anyway because of Bernie Worrell and, of course, the lily white audience dancers [teehee]. Thanks for the quality push my friend!

Yes, but as I said, the majority of ACTIVE, self labeled "feminists" are the man hating brand today, and it's causing many to no longer self label themselves 'feminist' lest they be confused with this vocal majority.

You ignore the pervasive and destructive culture of rape of women by women in prison as well, or the pervasive and destructive culture of rape of men by women outside of prison. Yes, it happens, and is prosecuted far more rarely for various reasons, marginalizing those real victims....just like these "feminists" do, pretending all men are rapists, and all women are victims. It's simply not true, and it muddies and sullies any real point they might have about equality.
I think you know I was using hyperbole to make a point. I don't advocate anyone being raped in real life...not even mass rapists, but I do see that it might be the only way to show SOME people who have a total lack of empathy for people that don't hold their mindset.

"Master"? I thought they said "dean". Is that the same thing? EDIT: If so, the dean is not a guidance counselor/therapist any more than a judge is outside college. They have guidance counselors and therapists for those jobs.

The point being, you said white men don't need protection because they can just shrug it off or, to quote..."We can pretty much take it; we as a group already have most of the money, most of the privilege, and most of the presidents. We don't need a safe space." ...do you still say that seeing how he's NOT capable of just 'shrugging it off' and ignoring them, knowing that many have lost their careers for simply not agreeing with this brand of PC-Nazi?
EDIT: Would you say that to a man who's been raped by a woman? How about a white man raped by a woman of color? Not about the rape itself, but that they still have all the power and can 'pretty much take it/they don't need a 'safe space'', while implying these kids can't take it and do need a safe space?

@HugeJerk
did you hear that???
that was the point whooshing over your head.

so you reply to a comment about your semantics,
by using even more semantics and then engage in some impressive mental gymnastics.

ok man..i can accept when a horse is dead,and i am not interested in beating it any further.

voodoo was attempting to make an over-arcing point in regards to civil liberties and possible abuses.which is very similar to the point i was trying to make,but you are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge those possibilities.

while newt may disagree with mine and voodoos premise,at least he acknowledges the possibilities for abuse.

ah well,probably my failure.
i can muddy the waters of my own argument by my own ramblomatic self-destructive prose.

peace brother.

"What if I told you that tickling them was like torture?"

Then I'd say: "please explain why this is and how you worked it out so I can contribute meaningfully to the issue."

Genuinely had to check after watching that this wasn't a hoax/satire. I'm not sure it could have come across as much more patronising and manipulative if they had tried.

Really reminded me of G.E.F.A.F.W.I.S.P. thing from brasseye in it's style and presentation. (Poe's law etc.)

Not that I disagree with the underlying point being made (most exotic pets have massive hidden costs to the animals well being), but I think they made it very poorly indeed.

If tickling is indeed torturous to them, then maybe make the flagship advert for your campaign do more than glibly announce "they don't like it!" whilst showing a video of what, to uneducated human sensibilities, appears to be joy/pleasure.

I'm not suggesting they are wrong, but even their website provides no materials or evidence to back up what they are saying. With a term as emotive and loaded as "torture", that comes across as rather disingenuous and makes me naturally somewhat suspicious as to their motives.

i.e. that they are likely ideologically opposed to most/all animal trafficking already and will happily muddy the facts & manipulate emotions if it furthers their higher purposes.

^ I don't want the above to come across as support for the Slow Loris pet trade, their unsuitability to domestic life and the need for pretty specialised knowledge to keep them healthy is reason enough (same as the vast majority of exotics). Chris Packham is one of the supporters and I have a great deal of respect for the guy's knowlage on such subjects.

But this, if anything, makes that advert seem all the more distasteful. YOU HAD EXPERTS! Persuade me better!

I also don't want to come across as suggesting that tickling definitely isn't deeply unpleasant for them for whatever reasons, but a cursory google and inspection of their own campaign site yielded nothing of any substance on the subject either way. (maybe my search-fu was lacking today?)

Again, I'm willing to accept the premise. If it will stand on it's own merits then I would like to understand. I will even advocate for the movement myself! But I'm not going to endorse anything I either can't or don't yet properly understand myself.

For every level headed campaigner with a basic sense of discernment and empathy for other creatures, there seems to be a mob of authoritarian ideologues eager to beat us around the head until we see things exactly their way and deny and semblance of nuance (i.e. PETA).

Wow, you're an old white cop.

That explains a lot.

Accept it Lantern, you're racist. You're a cop. You're a racist cop.

Maybe - jingoist - is a better way to describe it.
But extreme nationalism & racism go hand in hand.

You regularly say shit like " [Obama] has next to nothing in common with American traditions and history. "

You don't think that's a racist comment. But it is.

You're implying Obama is a foreigner & shouldn't be trusted.

In other words, "Go back to africa! Stop corrupting our pure Anglo-Saxon traditions with your muddy brown multi-culturism! Damn socialist lib-tards!"

P.S. -

Just because you say - "I've got a black-asian-female-lesbian friend" - doesn't mean you're not racist.

Talk about deluded.

It seems your position here is that the devil is infinitely more powerful than god, and far better at dealing with people, because he has managed to muddy the waters so much that his message(s) is infinitely more accepted than the 'true' but nearly unheard message of god, and god knows this and accepts it? That seems like a crazy sadistic god, that knows most people will be tricked by Satan (one of god's creations) into eternal hell (another one of his creations) through no fault of their own beyond the imperfect reasoning skills they were given by god, and he allows, even encourages it without ever setting the record straight? That sounds incredibly evil.

Many men of all religions have been raised from the dead...it happens in hospitals every single day.

We've been over the 'paid for our sins' fallacy, if he 'took our punishment of eternity in hell', who was that being 'raised from the dead', not Jesus. If he didn't spend eternity in hell, he didn't take the punishment prescribed for sinning, so certainly didn't even take the punishment for a single sinner.

What? Your soul is your enemy trying to destroy you?! What the hell? When did that happen...did you just become a Scientologist?

You can seek the advise of more than one GP and compare.

By their very title, GPs don't even claim to be the end all of medical knowledge They are in place to ensure the specialists (who are already severely booked) are not swamped with unnecessary work for common treatments, like vaccination.

This also isn't an issue that may vary between doctors or one they can have lack of knowledge about (like your fathers issue). This is a long standing, historically proven treatment.

I know you're not against vaccination but my point is, there's no need to muddy the issue with unrelated treatments where you weren't diagnosed 100%.

Kudos, I'd just like to really highlight two of the good points you make.

First, Tesla motors is huge. When I said electric cars, I didn't mention them by name but was thinking specifically of them. They have proven that electric cars are the future and are coming quickly.

The second is as Tyson pointed out, the most important metric is energy coming into the planet compared to energy going out. Temperatures fluctuate to many other variables. Particularly if the oceans are absorbing or releasing energy, temperatures as we experience them will shift on that and muddy the perception of what's actually happening to the overall planet's energy balance and long term change. In the late 80's we started measuring the energy in and out of the atmosphere with satellites. There was an observed increase between late 80's and late 90's in the energy imbalance. That means not only was more energy coming in than going out over that time, but the excess staying in was getting higher. With increasing CO2 emissions, that is exactly what we expect. An increased overall greenhouse effect should see the energy imbalance growing quite steadily as the effect gets stronger and stronger. Now, the IPCC's fifth assessment report has the the longer term data from those same and new satellites. The data shows that since 2001 there is strong agreement that the data shows NO TREND. That doesn't mean the energy in the planet hasn't been increasing. It means the rate of extra energy coming in hasn't gone up or down statistically since 2001. It means the overall greenhouse effect has been entirely stagnant for a little more than the last decade. Things are warming, but no faster than they were ten years ago.

I hope that's not to technical, but it paints a non-catastrophic picture. It also gives a superb metric to measure climate models against going forward. The models universally are projected on a steadily accelerating greenhouse effect as CO2 emissions rise. If the measured results of the last decade continue to not reflect that much longer, we have more reassessing to do. As noted in the IPCC, the effect of water vapor and clouds to increasing temperature is poorly modelled right now. If we are lucky the uncertainty of the sign on it as feedback is resolved to find it is a negative feedback. Meaning, as things warm, more clouds appear and reflect more energy back out. As things cool, less clouds appear and more energy comes in. And yeah, that's my own hope, and it is not the majority opinion within the scientific community as represented by the IPCC. They do acknowledge it as a possibility, but a less likely one. That said, the models they base that opinion on do not match the satellite energy measurements, and that one uncertainty would explain it rather well. My fingers are still crossed. More reasons for my optimism is the IPCC projections through 2100. If you look close, the actual temperature plotted against the projections has the actual following the very coolest of projections so far. Again, that lends hope that something like water vapor is either working for us, or not as badly against us as is currently modelled.

@bobknight33
you are confusing a political argument with a scientific one.

as @bcglorf has pointed out,the science is already In and established.the debate is on the relative parameters i.e: how much/little the affects will manifest.
so while it has been established their IS climate change and man HAS affected that change.the debate is the varying degrees and the level of impact.

so we know there will be a global effect,the debate is HOW and WHEN it will manifest,and on a smaller scale,just how much influence humankind is responsible.

some predict an extinction level catastrophe,while other predictions are not quite as apocalyptic,but the debate on whether or not climate change is real..is over.

because that is a scientific debate.

now in the political arena,whose job is to obfuscate any relevant facts to muddy the argument to propel the interests of extremely monied and powerful interests,they create a faux debate to give the appearance that the debate is still ongoing and the science is not settled.

which is exactly what this video is addressing.
remember,they dont have to win the argument.they just have to make a reasonable sounding argument..even if based on bullshit...to make you think.."well,...maybe" and they GOTCHA!

so you can make this a liberal vs conservative argument if you wish,but i would just point out that you playing the game exactly they way they have set it up.to manipulate you.

as for your assertion of "liberal owned media".
dude...
stop parroting that tired old trope that does not hold up to one minute of scrutiny.you are literally doing the plutocrats work FOR them.
every outlet of media in the united states is owned and operated by FIVE companies.

FIVE.

and not a single one could even remotely be considered "liberal",because that does not serve their interests.

this debate is simply NOT a political debate,it is a scientific debate.
plain and simple...learn to recognize the difference buddy.

and stop being a tool for fuck sakes.../slap
you are better than that.

and just a side note,for my own personal pleasure and enjoyment:
@dannym3141 you are my fucking hero brother! between you and @newtboy i struggle to hold onto my cynicism around both of you.

you guys give me hope.

now lets go grab a smoke @bobknight33 cuz these pansies wont let me smoke inside and i have to do it on the patio and they keep trying to get me to drink that godawful "redbull" when crystal meth does a much better job.

sheesh..kids these days.

ok..enough ranting for today and smacking bob around.
ya'all stay awesome.

yeah........
ill upvote for discussion purposes and to bring to light that climate is not a one dimensional argument.

so when i see these very targeted and one dimensional arguments using people with credentials (usually NOT in the field they are commenting on) sounding very reasonable...my alarms start going off.something is not quite right.

i call it the apathy argument,which is not really an argument at all but rather a political strategy.they dont actually have to WIN the argument,they just have to sound reasonable enough to make you think "well..maybe" and now you are a neutralized participant.

the gruber incident is now getting some serious airplay lately and everybody is sooo offended.
i am offended as well,but for different reasons.
calling the american voter "stupid" or any other human society stupid is an inaccurate term.

they are ignorant in most cases,and that is by design.

to deny that there are immensely powerful monied institutional forces attempting to muddy the argument for their own,specific interests and goals,while the fate of humanity can go fuck itself...now THAT...is stupid.

political arguments dressed up as as science really piss me off.

Hmmm. Debatable. Film is sort of "analog", so a good film picture can be blown up / magnified much more than a digital picture before it would look muddy/pixely. On the other hand, for anyone outside of professional photographers, getting a good digital picture is MUCH easier than getting a good film picture. I remember average-to-cheap film cameras that had to be focused, needed just the right light, no motion in the subject, etc. whereas even cheap digital cameras tend to auto-adjust to that stuff much better.

You're right. It is about context. But this video distorts the context.

Manhattan has a population of almost 1.8 million people. If you don't live in a major metropolitan area, please try to wrap your head around that number first. That's not all of NYC, that's just Manhattan.

When the director of this video said "The biggest ingredients for this to happen is tons of people, passing by and mixing with tons of other people. Its a numbers game. Eventually you run into an asshole..." he wasn't joking.

Higher density population increases the chance of seeing or experiencing things that are unpleasant. If you sat on your porch in bumfuck whogivesashitville long enough, you will eventually see some unpleasant things. It just happens faster where there are more people. And the culture IS different in cities then it is in rural areas. People are more used to being constantly near each other and interacting.

I'm not excusing the behavior of some of the assholes in this video. What I am really saying is that, at worst this video is a bullshit grab for money. At best it's a failed attempt to help women or educate/change the culture to be less misogynistic.

"Did you actually watch the video?" Yes. Did you notice this was two minutes out of 10 hours?

Misogyny exists. Harassment exists. Abuse exists. Domestic violence exists. Rape exists. We should all work to end it. This video just muddies the water on all those issues in what I think is a clear money grab.

/cynical

I love mind-stretching stuff, but the purpose is a little confusing in this. The science in visiting a comet and discovering sand dunes is damned great. (reference: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/10/scientists-discover-that-comet-stinks-and-has-dunes-just-like-earth ) But this little film buries that in the equivalent of master/apprentice wizardry and magic.

Yeah, yeah, effects were superb, and per Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and the story was meant to be noble. Got that.

But this still put me off a touch because it muddied the waters. Cool science is cool without CGI, and this went a bit too far down that lane.

I just don't understand how you can think that the power to influence public debate through politics and the media of pro green energy groups can compare to that of the size and influence of the old energy sector.

Green energy is a cottage industry compared to old energy. The power of environmentalists and even a few activist minded billionaires would pale to the spending power and incentive to act of old energy companies.

Surely if you're concerned about money muddying the debate, the first group you would focus on is the ones with disproportionately more money?

Also your arguments I've seen previously echo the tobacco / lung cancer debate. Aren't you concerned you're being duped by these supposedly authoritative blogs?

Now that is a muddy hole