I upvoted for the overall philosophical theme, but the assertion that we can't save ourselves as a species until we do away with abortion is kind of silly.

As a far-left Liberal, I 100% agree with Bill on this point. I understand the underlying idea behind PC -- that all people deserve respect and shouldn't be singled out for ridicule for things they can't help -- but the execution of this idea has been a disaster.

Nobody likes it when someone shouts out, "I'm a victim!" when they're obviously not. It demeans real victims, lessens the gravity of the word and concept of "victim", and makes the person calling themselves a victim not so much that term as the term "Cry-baby". Thus it makes all the people in the class (Liberals) generally associated with that group (whiners) look like specials snowflakes pleading for special, and unearned, treatment.

So if identifying new species of victim-hood is going to be your principle reason for existing, then you'd better expect to lose and lose often.

Interesting that a fundamentalist Christian is arguing a completely nihilist position. Nye could have done much better in responding to him: that we have a moral obligation to future generations to enable the species to continue to evolve and survive indefinitely. A scientific treatment of global climate change can provide us direction in how to ameliorate adverse changes that current and prior generations have created, whereas the "Christian" position, that global climate change is the result of sins by our current culture, doesn't lead to an effective strategy to ensure survival of the species.

Intolerance is a virtue.

With all love and respect to my friends in this thread, I wasn't joking and I don't apologise. Barack Obama is a subhuman nigger and he should be strung up to die like a nigger.

When you participate in the sort of widespread oppression and generalised evil that he has, both as an individual and a member of an unabashedly fascist government; when you, say, lock free people in cages because you don't approve of the things they choose to put in their own bodies; when you commit those crimes against humanity, you lose any claim you might have had to be considered a part of our species.

So he's a nigger - as you would expect him to be, plebiscite systems won't elect human beings while humanity is in the extreme minority in every country in the world.

The fact that you're all less concerned with the hundreds of thousands of real lives this megalomaniacal nazi turd-demon has destroyed (what a guy) than you are with a little name-calling, speaks to the total moral degeneracy of today's faux-progressive orthodoxy.

tldr: The decisions made in creating and rearing offspring are subject to a different set of moral criteria than all others because those decisions affect everyone.

Here's the problem with that thought. You didn't just make a decision that affected your life. Or even one that affected the lives of yourself and others you know. You intentionally created another sentient being. Because of human nature, that sentient being is now not just your responsibility, but everyone else's as well. Your decision quite literally affected the entire species. Or should I say infected.

There is no other decision anyone can make that has such an extent of repercussions (with the possible exception of murder). Whether you further choose to be responsible for your offspring is, from a decision making point of view, completely separate from the decision to create that offspring. And likewise, the decisions you make regarding the care of that offspring are entirely separate from the decision to create it. Those decisions are, whether you like it or not, subject to critique. You may not like it, and you may in fact see the entire process (conception, birth, weaning, rearing, etc...) as a single act. Either way, the entirety of the species is now constrained by your initial act of creation. The question is not whether you are a “good parent”. The question is how much of a burden upon or boon to the species will you be.

Just to make this contrast clear…. if I, as thinking adult, decide to consume alcohol in such excess that it causes my liver to fail, I can ask the species to help me to the point of giving me a new liver - which may or may not be granted based on my own words and actions. If you ask a similar favor on behalf your offspring, however, it’s an entirely different moral calculus.

@bobknight33
why is @newtboy a dumb fuck?

for pointing out that historically suicide bombers have not been exclusively muslim.newt is not disagreeing that radical islamic suicide bombers exist,he is simply pointing out that the practice of bombing in the name of religion is not an exclusively muslim practice when viewed through the lens of history.

the problem is NOT exclusively the religion of islam,the problem is fundamentalist thinking.so while at this point in history it is islam that is the theology that is twisted for a sinister and destructive purpose,the same justifications can be found in ALL religions,predominantly from the abrahmic:judaism,muslim and christianity.

this is not a simple issue,there are many factors to be considered on why people will strap a bomb to their chests and walk into a crowded cafe and blow themselves up.

factors such as:education,employment,community,family structures and most of all...hope.we need hope.all of us need hope but when conditions for normal people are so oppressive and hopeless,people will seek to find hope anywhere,which can be in the form of religion.

look,
words are inert,they are meaningless until someone reads those words..and then interprets them.

this is particularly true when addressing religion.
if you are a violent person,then your religion will be violent.
if you are peaceful and loving,then your religion will be peaceful.

no matter which sacred text you adhere to,be it the quran,the bible or the torah.you will find justification for any and all acts you choose to engage in,be it violent or peaceful.

and THAT is what sargon is addressing!
sargon is dissecting the apologetics of those who are just not getting the plot.radical islam is a problem,a big problem,and attempting to dismiss the underlying factors in order to make a more "palatable" explanation is wading into dangerous waters.

so we can understand the politics and motivation of a young man from palestine who straps explosives to his chest and blows himself up taking innocent civilians with him.we can look at the events that led up to that grievous choice.we know,because there is historical record,how badly the palestinian people are being treated,and have been for decades.the young man was stripped of hope,and the only solace he found was in the quran and so began his radicalization.

it is the politics that always,and i mean ALWAYS,sets the stage but it is the religion that lays out the justification.

which is what newt was basically talking about.
we can use the exact same calculus for fundamentalist christians,or zionist jews.

think about it,how many radicalized muslims live in america?
how many?
deerborn michigan has the largest muslim community in america.now go look at how many suicide bombers are born from that region.
notice anything?

politics is the fuel,religion is the match.

some here may take issue with sargon's take on this situation,but he is making valid points in regards to how some people (mainly on the left) engage in apologetics,while ignoring the larger implications.

if we,as a species,wish to curb the tide of religious fundamentalism and the radicalization of whole communities.then we need to address the politics first and foremost.otherwise this "war on terror" will become never-ending.because the "war on terror' is actually on "war on ideas",really bad ideas,predicated on even worse politics.

today it is islam.
tomorrow it may be christianity,and there is a whole army of fundamentalist and dominionist christians just waiting to be called for their "holy war".

or should i just call it "christian jihad".

Here is the problem, Mr. Schlosser is a journalist, not a Nuclear Scientist. He does not understand, or has chosen to ignore for propaganda reasons, that an unarmed warhead is EXTREMELY unlikely to perform the exact sequence of events that need to take place to have a nuclear reaction happen.

Yes, he is fully correct in that we have had numerous 'butt-clenching' moments in which we could have started WW3 due to a malfunction or human error. But in the other cases he mentions, such as the bombs that landed on Spain, the lightning bolt on the tower, and the wrench on the rocket, the chance of the warhead going up while being unarmed is infinitesimal. They simply don't go 'boom' because of a collision or explosion. Now you could have a 'dirty bomb' type incident where the radioactive materials could be spread and come into contact with humans, but that is about it.

The cases that have been officially listed as Broken Arrows were because they involved an active bomb, like the one in Florida. Everything else he mentions in this video is his 'belief' and is conjecture.

Now, before I get unloaded on, I wish we didn't have nuclear weapons. I don't agree with Trump that we should renew the arms race, I think he is nuts since we have more than enough weapons to blanket the cities of the world more than a couple of times. If you add all the nukes from the Big 3 (USA/Russia/France...yes, France) there are enough to cover every single inch of the world.

The problem is, who bells the cat? If we give up all of our weapons, we are at risk. I wish we weren't, but we would be. If we bring down our numbers gradually, there are still other countries that may not, like North Korea. How do we trust the other country is actually following through? In a perfect world, we would all lay down our weapons and sing kumbaya, but as Heinlein wrote: "...Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

PS...Yes, I know Starship Troopers is a controversial novel with overtones of Militarism and Fascism. However, there are quotes that ring true no matter what 'ism' people attach to the overall story. If you doubt that, look at the utter disbelief and depression that overcame liberals when Trump won. "He simply was supposed to, it was impossible, not like this, we have no hope, etc" were the feelings of the people who gave him no hope of winning. I, having lived and read enough to get a fair picture of how fucked up we are as a species, had little doubt he could pull it off. We elected a former Wrestler as governor, a former actor as governor, and a former actor as President. We overlook mass genocide in other countries. We ignore climate change. We spend hundreds of billions on defense and less than 10 on space exploration, all the while living on a planet that is already critically overpopulated (and is growing almost exponentially).

Ah. And climate change and pollution have nothing to do with population growth. And property values will always go up. Idiots. This was so obviously funded by individuals with more money than God who have no understanding of the impact of a species overpopulation on a fixed environment. As long as Billie Gates can buy his way to live far, far away from the starving, stinking masses, he will continue to spew out this nonsense. Don't buy into it.

From the comments, it is a wolf fish. All species of which are considered of concern or threatened. I wouldn't give that woman another rare fish to kill or her money back to buy one from another place.

Well, some times you have to draw a line.

I'm a speciesist.

Specifically, I am a human supremacist. I even feel strongly about it. I actually believe it is morally wrong to not hold up human life as inherently more valuable than that of any and all other species.

I don't find it hard to believe that people disagree with that. I'm not even surprised there are people that would want to liken that to being a racist. I am surprised that I begin to see society on the path to where my view becomes a minority view and I could potentially be looked down upon for being so backwards and closed minded.

Dannym3141 is so right!

"Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?"
"No, have you?"

"I don't know which species is worse-- you don't see them fucking each other over for a percentage."

"I guess she don't like the corn bread either."