Why stop there? Add these journalistic abortions to your short list of similar schlock-proctors, it's the same bag of shit with a more palatable label for those so programatically-defined:

MSNBC
ABC
CBS
NBC
CNN
Too many newspapers to name as complicit shit-rags, but try these time-honored, not-worth-wiping-with, pulp-poopaganda pages:
Newsweek
TIME
U.S. News & World Report

All designed to do one thing;
Guide peeps with no need-to-know into becoming much more ineffectual and idiocratic citizens.

They're all the fucking same beast, Babylon.

I don't think there is a single authority that would advocate someone speeding above 90mph in an emergency situation. In those situations it is my opinion that most experts would suggest waiting for the ambulance/police, not racing down the road like in the movies.

your 2.2. "point" is no different than people saying that gun owners would not give up their rights. It's not an argument its just a statement of something, it provides no support of anything other than "the world cant change that much" and I agree, in the case of gun ownership as well.

As for the difficulty in speed metering, look to many motorcycles and race cars for how to limit speed, it is already done today.

I use the example of cars because I'm not advocating stopping the use of cars, just the inability to travel above speeds that are reasonable. It's a change in safety that only affects enthusiasts or criminals in much the same way that gun laws would which is why I use it. Also because most of us know that although the majority of us own cars and operate them, we dont tend to exceed 90mph or drive under the influence ourselves and so it seems like a bit of an over-reaction.

My intention is not to compare driving and gun ownership directly. My intent was to compare the differing logic that people will apply to situations that have very analogous themes based on their personal bias or beliefs.

As much as many people see no reason for your average person to own a gun, I see no reason for the average person to be able to travel at high speeds. Just like affecting legal gun ownership will only lower violence some...so will limiting speeds only lower vehicle deaths some.

Just like removing all guns and the slow change in society resulting from it might one day minimize gun violence, so would removing all private ownership of cars require a painful period of mass transit expansion but eventually a world where rapid mass transit and only professional vehicle use would minimize vehicle deaths.

I would argue that the last two situations (all guns and all vehicles being gone with proper transit support) would be ideal for society. But they are also not going to happen any time soon. However how we can be so focused on guns and their use (particularly the use of legally obtained guns) in saving and protecting lives, while ignoring other places in society that cause more death is odd to me. Especially if those changes are just as obvious or palatable as extreme gun control measures when gauged across all demographics.

>> ^fuzzyundies:

I've had habusake (pit viper liquor). It tasted like cinnamon and dead snake.


You sir (?) have a much more adventurous palate than I. I salute you =oD

>> ^pyloricvalve:

In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.


Yup, I've done Keto combined with Intermittent Fasting (I usually eat one meal a day after I get home from work, sometimes I eat lunch too if we go out and eat at my workplace) and I've lost ~30 kg (~66 pounds) in 5-6 months and I have not been hungry once since I entered ketosis. No exercise involved at all either. (Yes yes... 1 data point does not a fact make, especially when they are subjective feelings)

So instead of eating sugar with more sugar and fat-free foods with added sugar in it to make it palatable... eat natural full-fat products and protein and be full all day... or you could eat sugar and have an insulin spike 30 mins later and end up with a lower blood sugar than you started with... unless you eat again. Ergo the "You should 5 meals a day" thing.

Some linky things
Scientific sources about the effects of Ketogenic Diet
1 Cancer
2 Alzheimers
3 Diabetes (Type 2)
4 Cardiovascular health and Dietary saturated fat
5 Review of LC diet and health markers

Blog
6 Cholesterol (Blog by a doctor so iffy source but interesting stuff anyway; I recommend reading all parts really)
7 How we came to believe cholesterol and fat is bad for us (From the same blog. 1 hour talk on the subject)

Video series/lectures
8 Cancer again (Video lecture)
9 The role of fat in weight loss (Video series, 3 parts)
10 Why we get fat (Video series, 3 parts)
11 2011 Public Forum in San Francisco at Nutrition and Health Conference (Video series, 4 part playlist)

You can also look into some of the videos on the sift such as:
12 The Food Revolution (Video/lecture sifted on VS)
13 Sugar the bitter truth.

(Seems they are both sifted by me... Oh my... self promotion galore!)

*nsfw

And pineapples do belong on pizzas. But only when paired with ham. Sweet and salty matches well together and is a welcomed palate compliment, even on pizza.

It's not like these guys never listen to music at a reasonable level, usually what comes a long with a hobby like this is the process to the end result.

Endlessly tinkering with new parts and doing all the wiring, tuning etc, it can be a fun hobby. So the enjoyment comes from seeing how all that came together, they're not listening and going "Wow these are really great lyrics", they're thinking "Fucking A, that speaker really booms! I think I can do X with it though!" or however they talk.

There is also something to be said about feeling + hearing sound, the effect at a concert is probably a more palatable experience for the majority of us but this experience isn't far removed from that effect.

>> ^ToastyBuffoon:

Call me old fashioned (I'm up there in age but not as old as "Gramps"), but I just don't understand this shit. What is so wonderful about vibrating your entire car to the point of not understanding one friggin' word or anything else music related with the song you are playing? I enjoy a bit of heavy bass with the music of my choice, but that crap completely ruins the "enjoyment" part for me.

@dystopianfuturetoday I respect this guy too, he's definitely a heavyweight in the field, that's why this threw me back so much. I would argue that Harris and Hitchens were merely attacking the faith of the Muslims as much as they attack the faith at home. Faith being so ingrained in the Muslim community I can see how this would be racist in a sense, it almost has to be. To say they are religious illiterates though... that smacks of saying they're illiterate only because they refuse to drink the kool-aid.
As far as Hitchens being a neocon, if he is an old school neocon a la Wolfowitz, I could kinda see why though I still don't like it. Since then the neocon doctrine was highjacked by the Bush administration and now is far less palatable obviously.

Edit: I also believe that no one of Hedges intellect can defend religion without 'vehement dishonesty'.

hey thanks for the vote of confidence my man.
while i am loathe to admit it,i am just as susceptable to presumption as the next person but i find if we give that person a chance we can learn so much more about who they actually are.
we are all human after all.
being a gnostic i tend to get flack from not just the secular community but an even more virulent reception from the religious community.

it took a bit of conversing with shiny to understand he was just a true believer and not some wanker looking to stir the wasp nest.

i have found if you listen to what someone says (even if you disagree) and dont outright dismiss their core beliefs,their tone will change to a much softer and palatable discourse.

so much gets lost in text that patience is a must to achieve a better understanding.of course i fail at this as often as i succeed,but i try.

I understand perfectly well what he was saying, and again, it is social darwinism, whether they are going to die in agony or not. If you listen to the rest of it, what they are talking about is removing the ethical barrier that is present due to our being created in the image of God. They would like to see that removed and have human life be regarded on the same plane as animal life. When you do that, suddenly things like infanticide become more palatable, because after all, there are billions of us..what is one less? A lot of people want to reduce the population of the planet by 80 percent or so (so long as they're not on the 80 percent side of the equation). It's classic social darwinism, in all its repugnant splendor.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Dawkins is supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases.
Ok, this is the last time I explain this to you. Dawkins is talking about "supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases" that meant it was going to die in agony. That is a direct quote from the video. He is not supporting infanticide in the case of:
- curable diseases
- deformities
- disabilities
- down's syndrome, etc.
Once again, the world is not black and white. Context matters.

One of my cats felt from 6th floor ...twice. She almost died first time, suffered multiple fractures including jaw and moth palate and lost 25-30% of her tummy skin and tissue due to necrosis caused by the impact with the concrete pavement.
Second time she felt on the other side of the apartment building into a small garden, she was just fine.
So I might be in the right to answer some questions on this topic

Hate the song, but that made it palatable.

Well, Gingrich is in the mix for sure, but honestly I think Mittens is the most palatable combination of qualified and electable. I mean, the guy actually has executive experience, as well as business sense. Gingrich comes with so much baggage, and sounds like such a dick all the time.

>> ^heropsycho:

I disagree. If you're gonna put resumes of the candidates together, Newt Gingrich would be the most qualified. Sure, Ron Paul has been in Congress longer, but Gingrich had a major leadership position as Speaker of the House. Going along with that, he negotiated numerous deals with the President, including gov't budgets, talks about foreign policy initiatives, etc.
I don't mean to suggest I think he's the best candidate because I don't think he is, but most qualified? No contest.
I don't vote necessarily for the most qualified, but I will NOT vote for anyone who isn't qualified. Ron Paul is qualified to be President, although I don't think I could ever vote for him because of his ideological rigidity. Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Cain are all unqualified.
>> ^notarobot:
"There's got to be someone who understands the issues better than Herman Cain?"
Um... Ron Paul is the most qualified and experienced candidate on the republican stage, period. Now if only he could figure out how to connect with "normal" people, and have some billionaire back him to buy MSM air time.

>> ^hpqp:

I'm pretty sure he is dancing especially to this song. 3:32-4:20 is pretty telling for example. I'm not a fan of this kind of music but moves like that can definitely make it palatable to watch.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
The way he moves has nothing to do with the music. It didn't seem like he was actually responding to the music at all.


Oh, I'm sure that this song was playing while he was dancing. I meant more that the music is intense and frantic, and his dancing is slow and kinda samey after the first thirty seconds. For me, it doesn't match the music, and not in a good "juxtaposey" kind of way.

I'm pretty sure he is dancing especially to this song. 3:32-4:20 is pretty telling for example. I'm not a fan of this kind of music but moves like that can definitely make it palatable to watch.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

The way he moves has nothing to do with the music. It didn't seem like he was actually responding to the music at all.

Um, I think you misunderstood me, hpqp. I think she was flat out wrong to call people of faith idiots. I too think it is counterproductive. I agree with @xxovercastxx 100% on his/her first comment on this thread.

It is rational and respectful arguments that are going to make it possible and palatable for some closet atheists to feel comfortable claiming their rational side. Insulting their loved ones possibly keeps them in the closet -- they are not going to want to join such folks.

The angry closet atheists don't need permission to break free -- they are loaded for bear and raring to go.