I was listening to this on the radio while on lunch today. I laughed. OMGZ ! SOMEONE TALKED TO ME WHILE IN A PARK ! ! shit. wish I had my gun.

The worst thing about texting? Texting.

Fucking call me if you want to talk to me, but if you HAVE to text me A) use complete sentences, words, punctuation and grammar and B) don't expect me to text you back. Ever.

All this talk makes me want McD's.

*love
*talks
reminded me of
When I look back on all these worries, I remember the story of the old man who said on his deathbed that he had had a lot of trouble in his life, most of which had never happened..
-Churchill

"The illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship" ... And this is bad because?

"We turn to technology to help us feel connected in ways we can comfortably control" ... You say it like its a bad thing.

"Being alone feels like a problem that needs to be solved" ... Actually no, I'm fine with alone. It is other people that need stuff that feels like a problem that needs to be solved.

"Constant connection is changing the way people think of themselves" ... Yep that's the way it has always been. I bet there was someone like her when the telephone was invented, and when the radio was invented, and when the TV was invented. The world is changing, and I am cool with it.

And then she ends the talk, talking about learning to be alone with ourselves. Hmm, as someone who never texts, never bring a cellphone anywhere, only talks to people at work because that is what I am paid to do, and does not even have a twitter account, I guess she wasn't talking to me.

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Are you trying to get me to self link? All right. I'll try to recreate this, but it will have to wait until I go to the grocery store again. We had pork chops last night, even, but they were the frozen variety.

I want fresh off the shelf pork chops for this. And I'll have to buy some Coke! Glorious excuse for it.

And why the fuck are you talking to me in third person? It's freaking me out.


Maybe the temperature of the pork meat have something to do with it. The pork seen in the video you uploaded seemed more firm, while pork from other debunking videos looked thawed.

Are you trying to get me to self link? All right. I'll try to recreate this, but it will have to wait until I go to the grocery store again. We had pork chops last night, even, but they were the frozen variety.

I want fresh off the shelf pork chops for this. And I'll have to buy some Coke! Glorious excuse for it.

And why the fuck are you talking to me in third person? It's freaking me out.
>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^UsesProzac:
>>
I stated earlier that I had seen that, and they couldn't recreate it. No little white dots appeared and rose up. I've done this on my own with chops.
So to say that's a proven false is ambiguous at best.
Edit: Everyone should try it on their own. Each of the times I did at Sunflower Market, it happened. This was with organic, free range pork chops. I really don't know if they're worms, but we called them worms then and it was definitely yucky looking and worth a laugh in the back rooms.

You have it all backwards Prozac. The video is proven false because many others failed to recreate the same result the video claimed under the same presented condition. There are numerous articles and videos pointing out that they could not duplicate the claimed results (http://youtu.be/B-oapHo-gdU). The fact that others cannot duplicate the same results makes the original video's claim inaccurate. It's Scientific Method 101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility)
If you are to argue that the duplicators have failed to carry the experiment properly, then you must provide evidence where the duplicated experiments have done wrong. It's a pretty darn simple experiment and it's rather hard to screw up. If there were other important preexisting conditions that had to be met prior to executing the experiment, then the original video should have stated these conditions. The video claims 'pour coke', 'over the pork' and '2 minutes'. People have followed the instructions, didn't see same result. Therefore the suggested hypothesis claimed by the video cannot be proven.
Also, Trichinella spiralis is quasi-microscopic. It is TINY and barely visible to the naked human eye. Try to Googling a photo of it and you'll only find microscopic images. Therefore, the so-called 'worms' visible in video cannot be Trichinella spiralis.
UsesProzac claims she's done the experiment and have seen 'something yucky'. Chances are that it wasn't Trichinella spiralis since they can't be seen by the naked eye. Perhaps she did see 'something yucky', but as to what that is, remains a mystery. No one has seen it but her, and it's her objective opinion claiming that it looked like a worm. I suggest UsesProzac upload a video of her experiment. Shot continuously without break in between, and in high quality so that the results are visible. Otherwise the existing evidence all over the net are stacked against you.

>> ^westy:

what an annoying person , just looking at her and seeing her talk makes me want run her over with a tank.
but good singer and songs good.


Then upvote, dingus!

>> ^messenger:

But it's only their people who can worship there. How can tax deductions for religious be justified in the first place? Who even came up with that idea? Stupid.

The justification for it was that churches, synagogues and the like provide benefits for the community at large and not just their members.

How true this is today probably depends on where you live. A few weeks ago this happened about 10 minutes from where I live. Dozens of families have been left homeless and without all their belongings. Many of the local houses of worship have stepped up to donate clothing and food and to find temporary shelter for those that need it with no reservations about the faith of the victims.

Likewise, if I ever found myself way down on my luck with nobody to turn to for help, I could walk into most of the houses of worship here and the father or rabbi would be willing to talk with me and help, probably even without invoking God and faith if I told them I was not a believer.

This is the sort of thing you find in small, somewhat old-fashioned towns like this, though I wouldn't be surprised to find it in NYC either. Not every redneck is an aggressive authoritarian.

That being said, I'd like to see some restrictions enacted on religious tax exemptions. The Hasidim, in particular, have greatly abused this. Large portions of the land here are Hasidic camps (summer homes) which are listed as religious retreats and pay no taxes. It's costing us a fortune and we've been struggling for decades, never mind the recession. They do not participate in the community, they do not give back to the community and if I walked into one of them looking for help as described in my example above, I would be thrown out and charged with trespassing. They do not meet any of the requirements for tax exempt status under NYS law but they are very good at bloc voting, so they have been able to keep it going.

>> ^raverman:

Is fining revenue gathering? Of course it is.
Is speeding endangering the lives of your fellow citizens? Of course it is.
(It's not a matter of opinion. It's proven and documented statistical probability.)
So the secret to beating the system? Just don't speed.
With any luck you'll hit a tree and remove your idiocy from the gene pool - but sometimes you'll hit one of us and hurt our loved ones. So we asked our government to do something to keep us safe from you. That's why there are laws and enforcement.


you talking to me?
because i speed all the time and i mean SPEED..none of that mamby pamby pussy speeding,im talking red-lining as fast as my car can go baby!(ok..that may have been a tad hyperbolic,but you get my point).

do i do this in a 25mph zone? no.
where residential homes are and possibly children? of course not,dont be absurd.
busy highway? with cluttered traffic? again that would be pretty dumb.traffic by its nature has a flow to it and 5 miles more per hour wont make much of a difference.

i am an adult who can make rational and reasonable choices concerning my safety and those around me and i CHOOSE to let my car rip with the windows down and the music cranking usually late at night when few cars are on the road and always a well lit road and/or highway.
i am not risking anybodies safety but my own.the only thing i am truly risking is getting popped by a cop and that is also a risk i chose.
i am ok with that and i have been pulled over a few times with not ONE citation for speeding (though i obviously was).

because that IS the point of this video yes?
a cop pulls me over on a lone highway doing 110mph and all i get is a warning but an automated surveillance camera does not make those distinctions.nor does it differentiate between 1 mile over the speed limit or 30 mph over.it does not discriminate because safety has nothing to do with its function.it serves entirely as a revenue gatherer...period.

now maybe you are speaking of those drivers who zip in and out of lanes,always having to gain that 5-10 of pavement,cutting in and out and driving aggressively.
or the drivers who scream down a residential road doing 50mph where kids play and people walk their dog.
well i can agree with you whole-heartedly on those points.those drivers are disregarding the safety of other people and should be fined etc etc but (and this is the main point) you will NEVER find one of those surveillance cameras in those areas.
why?
because most people dont drive like that and usually only speed on open highways.
(this is not opinion but statistically documented)
there is more revenue to be had on the open highway than there ever could be on your side street.hence surveillance is (usually) on open highways and freeways.
this is about money,moola,scratch and little to do with safety...or the law.

i am sure you did not direct your post at me @raverman nor people who may speed on occasion like i do.i am just using your comment to make a point and to express something that i am seeing more and more and i have to admit that it is a bit troubling to me.
how many of the people i encounter are becoming more and more comfortable with tactics such as this and then rationalize it in a way that,on the surface,does seem reasonable but i ask you...
i ask all of you..
to think a bit further when a government implements such tactics as automatic surveillance under the guise of safety because when we look at it honestly it is anything BUT about concerns for safety.

i do not obey blindly and i aim to misbehave.
i might just start doing that wearing a nightgown.
lets be honest..that was epic.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Fletch:
Who says I don't read them? I'm always up for a laugh.
You say you don't read them. You've gone out of your way to tell me you don't read them. Now suddenly you're reading them again?
>> ^Fletch:
That said, I haven't seen a single comment you've ever made that wasn't SPAM. As a charter, I don't want to see ads, and I long ago tired of your incessant, blathering sales pitch. Quite frankly, someone as condescending, self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant, and obnoxious as yourself is not going to win any converts, and I think you know that. Which means your continued infection of VS must be ego-driven, a false sense that you are doing "good" in your tiny little universe. Then again, the ability to lie to oneself is fundamental to buying into the whole magic-man-in-the-sky thing, so maybe you can't/refuse to understand how most of us perceive you.
Many people on this site, including you, are antitheists; I know exactly how you feel about me, not withstanding, what it says in scripture:
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
I never expected to be welcomed into a community made up of atheists, agnostics and antitheists. However, there are a few that have crossed lines and been friendly with me, although they talk to me in private because of the massive social stigma against talking to me that people like yourself have perpetuated. I would also note that dag has always been welcoming and fair with me, and he has said a few times that he appreciates my contributions here. I've tried to participate more in the community, but since people always downvote all of my comments and videos, I just participate in the topics that interest me and try to find good conversation.
>> ^Fletch:
When I was a child, I remember running upstairs one Christmas morning and telling my parents that I not only saw Santa last night, but I TALKED to him as well. I related our entire conversation of cookies and reindeer, how I helped him carry the 4-man toboggan that now leaned against the fireplace, and how he gave our dog, Missy, a Milk-bone. I knew I was lying, but who would ever suspect? Santa is real, right? And he's magic. Everyone knows that. I wasn't lying about Santa. He was real to me, as he must be real to everyone. Just a small fib about our interaction that no mere muggle could challenge. I was a star. I TALKED to Santa! Company would come over, and my parents would have me relate my tale to them. They ate it up.
To me, you are the me who saw Santa, a pathetic nincompoop who feels solace in the fact that science can't prove a negative (it doesn't work that way), AND you're trying to sell me microwave popcorn and beefsticks, AND you won't quit ringing my doorbell.
Anyone can prove a negative. For instance, there are no muslim senators. You can check it out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliation_in_the_United
_States_Senate
You could disprove the idea of God if it were logically inconsistant. I challenge you to come up with an argument.
You think I am here for me, but I am not. I am here because of Jesus, and because of you. I care about you enough to take all of your insults and condescension so I can have a chance to tell you how much God loves you. My only motive here, and in everything else in my life, is to serve the will of God. I haven't always done that, but in any case, it's not about me; my life is not my own; it belongs to Him.


TL;DR

>> ^Fletch:
Who says I don't read them? I'm always up for a laugh.

You say you don't read them. You've gone out of your way to tell me you don't read them. Now suddenly you're reading them again?

>> ^Fletch:
That said, I haven't seen a single comment you've ever made that wasn't SPAM. As a charter, I don't want to see ads, and I long ago tired of your incessant, blathering sales pitch. Quite frankly, someone as condescending, self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant, and obnoxious as yourself is not going to win any converts, and I think you know that. Which means your continued infection of VS must be ego-driven, a false sense that you are doing "good" in your tiny little universe. Then again, the ability to lie to oneself is fundamental to buying into the whole magic-man-in-the-sky thing, so maybe you can't/refuse to understand how most of us perceive you.

Many people on this site, including you, are antitheists; I know exactly how you feel about me, not withstanding, what it says in scripture:

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I never expected to be welcomed into a community made up of atheists, agnostics and antitheists. However, there are a few that have crossed lines and been friendly with me, although they talk to me in private because of the massive social stigma against talking to me that people like yourself have perpetuated. I would also note that dag has always been welcoming and fair with me, and he has said a few times that he appreciates my contributions here. I've tried to participate more in the community, but since people always downvote all of my comments and videos, I just participate in the topics that interest me and try to find good conversation.

>> ^Fletch:
When I was a child, I remember running upstairs one Christmas morning and telling my parents that I not only saw Santa last night, but I TALKED to him as well. I related our entire conversation of cookies and reindeer, how I helped him carry the 4-man toboggan that now leaned against the fireplace, and how he gave our dog, Missy, a Milk-bone. I knew I was lying, but who would ever suspect? Santa is real, right? And he's magic. Everyone knows that. I wasn't lying about Santa. He was real to me, as he must be real to everyone. Just a small fib about our interaction that no mere muggle could challenge. I was a star. I TALKED to Santa! Company would come over, and my parents would have me relate my tale to them. They ate it up.

To me, you are the me who saw Santa, a pathetic nincompoop who feels solace in the fact that science can't prove a negative (it doesn't work that way), AND you're trying to sell me microwave popcorn and beefsticks, AND you won't quit ringing my doorbell.

Anyone can prove a negative. For instance, there are no muslim senators. You can check it out there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliation_in_the_United_States_Senate

You could disprove the idea of God if it were logically inconsistant. I challenge you to come up with an argument.

You think I am here for me, but I am not. I am here because of Jesus, and because of you. I care about you enough to take all of your insults and condescension so I can have a chance to tell you how much God loves you. My only motive here, and in everything else in my life, is to serve the will of God. I haven't always done that, but in any case, it's not about me; my life is not my own; it belongs to Him.

^Upvoted^ & I'll let 60's UK singer Petula Clark do my talking for me here. Lyrics (If you want to read along)

The Other Man's Grass Is Always Greener - (Petula Clark)

sex is more a communication,an expression of emotional connectedness translated into a physical manifestation and not just a mundane act of procreation.

in my humble opinion women are far more adept in the art of physical communication than men are.the language they employ to express their adoration is as varied as it is profoundly subtle.
seduction is an art spoken in whispers and all we have to do is but listen.
a woman will use everything at her disposal:
the lingering stare.
the coy smile.
the flirtatious hair twirl.
let there be no mistake...
a woman plans EVERYTHING,down to the smallest detail,especially when it comes to seduction.
they have an arsenal of weapons of mass seduction and to the discerning male who understands this language there is little room for doubt the intentions and desires being broadcast on all channels.

but sadly most males are not of the discerning sort (this is due to many factors,some social,others more internally based).
so the woman is almost forced to become a blunt instrument and bash the male in the face to communicate her intentions.
so it really should not come as a surprise that some woman have been found to use the more blunt and crude instruments in their arsenal in order to get their message across.

so we have women faking orgasms and pretend moaning but even in its falseness there is still the act of love,or loving,to be more accurate,because ultimately the women is still attempting to be a good lover by making her man feel...well..like a MAN.

so let me present a little unbidden advice:
to all my male brothers.
start paying attention!
because if you start paying attention to all those seemingly innocuous cues that your woman drops on a daily basis.those fake moans and fake orgasms will no longer be...well..fake.

that being said.
i am with cenk that if you dont bring the genuine read deal i become bored real fast.
i am not interested in performance art.
i am interested in you.
let your body talk to me.
i will listen.

I also noticed you didn't even contemplate my analogy because I didn't provide evidence of one thing (public education) being "equivalent" to another (public control of media). What if you tried to show me how the analogy doesn't hold somehow, because analogies are just abstractions, are they even supposed to be backed by evidence?

Did that analogy scare you?

I agree it's not possible to have a healthy debate with someone who tries to intimidate and hide behind request for evidence for anything the other side may say, even for a simple analogy.

I think it's either very naïve or disingenuous of you to accuse me of political bias, without providing evidence yourself (not that I would request it) while assuming that whatever interpretation of evidence that you gathered through the internet can't possibly have any political bias whatsoever.

However, I confess it was disingenuous of me to focus on the issue of political bias when I personally think the results are probably true regarding students in Finland having better scores, even though I don't consider that being "better" education.

You want links, you can find them using Google. Links are nothing but referring to the interpretation of someone else, whether that interpretation is based on evidence or not, whether that interpretation is biased or not, and whether the evidence is even true, is another matter altogether. So please get off your righteous evidence-supported high horse and try to talk to me as a regular person.

If you want to back away now because I have no evidence, fine, but could you please indulge me by answering about that analogy? Sorry for the wall of text btw.