Hmmm. Ok fucj it. I'll go and find a video with Aussies praising the confiscation of their property and rendering the place crime-free...ish.

This is more for the country that's headed towards a colossal fist-fuck because of politicians (criminals), pharmaceutical companies (insulated from mention by all major media and, not surprisingly, self-pimping turds without a clue like TYT, one of THE most flaccid, non-journalistic cretinfests on the web) who help to "create" mental-health problems larger than they need to be by unleashing damaged goods full of legal drugs prescribed by complicit doctors. Step in, the magic wand of unraveling and deconstruction of the U.S. Constitution by appointed and approved, so-called scholars from Harvard(oh hey, the same place not a few of the cunts who run the country hailed-from) to "provide" a solution for a problem that they created and you have the slow-motion train-wreck of the coming police state in one of the best places to be on the planet.

Everything is propaganda sparky, it's your job to wade through what you perceive to be bullshit, kinna like I'm wading thorough yours without really wanting to argue.

Brave New World. Newsflash: Eliminate gun-free zones, arm yourselves against an agenda to let mental health monstrosities roam the place un-checked on hardcore psychotropics with guns STOLEN from their fucked-up mommy, and don't ask a country who will hide their guns from a government determined to take them ALL away to accept anything less than a sane solution to what is primarily a problem created by the people with the MOST money, power, and influence.

Tell me why the pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be having their asses dragged across the coals on television for their part in mass-murder? Answer: Because they have more power and money than a gun lobby.

Again, I give fuck-all about loaded facts and figures form any side of the aisle, they mean dick because the real issue lies in governments fist-fucking their citizens. Shame on the the Brits for letting their government take their shit away and shame on the Aussies for letting the Crown fuck them as well.

Let's address those, shall we?

So first you're going to stab, choke or bludgeon me?

You're welcome to try, son.

You have to get close to me. You have to over power me. You have to do this in a way that stops others from stopping you. I don't for a second believe you're capable of that.

You want to poison or bomb me?

This takes dedication, planning and materials. None of which the average unstable individual usually has. Are there a few dyed in the wool nutjobs with resources? Sure but there's a lot less of them, and having to procure the materials for the acts makes it a lot easier to catch them.
It's almost as if controlling bomb and poison making materials worked...

The US attitude to guns is what scares me the most. There are plenty of people in other countries with guns, but almost all of them have guns for a specific reason, like hunting or target shooting.

Only in the US have I met people who own guns for "home defence". As such, you get people who really don't have a clue how to safely operate a gun and who believe it's a magic talisman that keeps them safe. It's bullshit, and frankly, it's time you grew the fuck up and realised you're not in an action movie.

Thank you. I became increasingly astonished during reading that harvard would publish something like that. Dubious numbers, loaded language throughout and a complete disregard of correlation vs. causation had me scratching my head the whole time.

@drk421 You've been duped. That study isn't from Harvard.

It's from a student newsletter entitled. "Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy"

ABOUT HARVARD JLPP

The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an organization of Harvard Law School students.

The Journal is one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.

The late Stephen Eberhard and former Senator and Secretary of Energy E. Spencer Abraham founded the journal twenty-eight years ago and many journal alumni have risen to prominent legal positions in the government and at the nation’s top law firms.

The NRA talking points are an excellent vehicle for the study of logical fallacy in political propaganda. Let me know if I left any out.

1. Strawman - Banning ALL guns is not the answer.

2. False Dichotomy - Instead of talking about gun regulation, let's talk about mental health.

3. Appeal to Authority - Check out this study I didn't read or verify that was written by two conservative think tank employees in a private student published newsletter with "Harvard" in it's name that is not sanctioned by Harvard University proper. http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/about/

4. Argument from ignorance - if only the teachers had been armed, this tragedy would have been averted.

5. Denying the Antecedent - Existing laws did not prevent this tragedy, therefore, new laws cannot prevent future tragedies.

6. Fallacy of Composition: You will never be able to stop all gun crime, therefore we shouldn't try to stop some gun crime.

7. Red Herring: More people are killed in automobile accidents than are killed by gun enthusiasts. Should we ban cars too?

If you actually read the study, the "several other nations" are in East Europe and the Balkans.

How about just looking at the data instead of citing studies and throwing Harvard around?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

Sort descending rate by country. See any countries above the US's rate you'd like to live in?

"One study asserts that Americans are more likely to be shot to death than people in the world’s other 35 wealthier nations. While this is literally true, it is irrelevant—except, perhaps to people terrified not of death per se but just death by gunshot. A fact that should be of greater concern but which the study fails to mention—is that per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this."

Study by Harvard:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

No, they are not the same thing, and they are not creationist terms. If you didn't know that then you need to do a lot more research. Find out what the actual empirical evidence is, and not just agree with the conclusions. Yes, I know that time is the secular miracle worker:

However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once....Time is in fact the hero of the plot.

Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, Harvard
Physics and Chemistry of Life p.12

At present this concept of design is just castle-in-the-sky nonsense. Empty piffle. A complete non-starter.

This is why the "mere mention" of "design" will get you "banned" from peer-review, because you could just as well have made a "mere mention" of Bigfoot and the loch ness monster in your zoology report, it's a big tell to your peers that you are a nut who fails to understand the nature of evidence and science, and a big sign that you are in for some fuzzy logic and dumb assumptions instead of solid science.

Design is a better hypothesis for the information we find in DNA, and the fine tuning we see in the physical laws. The reason design is a non-starter is because the idea this Universe was created by anyone is anathema to the scientific community:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

S. C. Todd,
Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

After essentially nullifying and disproving everything we have learned about biology the last 200 years, you still have all the work ahead of you, I'm afraid. You now have to build a completely new framework and model for every single observation ever made in biology that makes sense of it all and explains why things are the way they are. Shouting that a thing is "complex" is not cutting it, I'm afraid. You need a new theory of DNA, Immunology, Bacterial resistance, adaptation, vestigal organs, animal distobution, mutation, selection, variation, genetics, speciation, taxonomy... well, as Dobzhansky put it: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" That quote is more relevant than ever.

Your error here is conflating micro and macro evolution. Creation scientists believe in micro evolution and speciation. That is part of the creationist model of how the world was repopulated with animals after the flood. Macro evolution, the idea that all life descended from a universal common ancestor, is not proven by immunology, bacterial resistance, adaptation, animal distribution, mutation, seclection, variation, speciation, taxonomy etc. The only way you could prove it is in the fossil record and the evidence isn't there. They've tried to prove it with genetics but it contradicts the fossil record (the way they understand it). So Creationists have no trouble explaining those things..and common genetics points to a common designer.

You dont have to trust scientists, most of the EVIDENCE is RIGHT FUCKING THERE, in front of you, in your pocket, in your hand, around your home, in every school, in every home, in every post office or courtroom, in the streets. ACTUAL REAL EVIDENCE, right there, PROVING, every second, that the universe is billions of years old.

Every scientist since Newton could be a lying sack of shit, all working on the same conspiracy, and it would mean fuck all, because the evidence speaks for itself.

The earth is definately NOT ten thousand years young.

Have you ever heard of the horizon problem? The big bang model suffers from a light travel time problem of its own, but they solve it by postulating cosmic inflation, which is nothing more than a fudge factor to solve the problem. First, it would have to expand at trillions of times the speed of light, violating the law that says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. There is also no theory compatible with physics that could explain the mechanism for how the Universe would start expanding, and then cease expanding a second later. It's poppycock. See what secular scientists have to say about the current state of the Big Bang Theory:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

As far as how light could reach us in a short amount of time, there are many theories. One theory is that the speed of light has not always been constant, and was faster at the beginning of creation. This is backed up by a number of measurements taken since the 1800s showing the speed of light decreasing. You can see the tables here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/velocity-of-light

*Ahem*
It's horrible how those people @ MIT, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Apple, Google, Ebay, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. just want things! Those worthless democrats keeping the economy alive are nothing but bloodsucking welfare recipients... If only they'd follow the lead of the republican states like Alabama, and Mississippi, we'd be in a better shape!

KICK ASS!! Tottering news-heads in Freudian-slippage!! It's the Harvard Law, 'flash of lightening's' own fault for having such a divisive-sounding name

Like @NetRunner said, he's X minus 20.

In other words, he's the second closest person on the planet to the most powerful position on the planet. It's due in large part to his being the American-born privileged white male heterosexual Christian son of a wealthy businessman and governor who sent him through Harvard Law. And now he's standing in a room full of insanely rich (and I'm assuming) heterosexual-identified Christians complaining that he would be better off if he were Latino. Would he even be in that room if he were Latino? I doubt it.

He had all those advantages in life and has reached such heights from them, and that's fine. But then, when it would be convenient, he wishes he could briefly be Latino, so he can have that limited advantage too. This shows a complete lack of appreciation (both meanings) for the advantages he has and the benefits they have gained him. He wouldn't have even gotten into the primaries.

>> ^zor:

Zoo or Harvard? What's the difference?


Zoo has a lot cheaper entry fee.

Zoo or Harvard? What's the difference?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Know Your Meme, Creepy Chan' to 'Know Your Meme, Creepy Chan, allison harvard' - edited by xxovercastxx