This isn't the first time that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company has rebranded itself.


http://videosift.com/video/Robert-Newmans-History-of-Oil

I was all set to *promote another excellent video about some of the history surrounding this disaster, but I'll have to get back to that one when my points recharge.

I guess it's time for every one to have that bar-code and government issued cars now. I mean, shit, since free market failed.

I suppose it's time we just let the government decide every, fucking, thing. I mean look at the "cracker-jack job" they did with Iraq, the bailout and, fuck, the oil spill too.

Fuck it let 'em own the markets, they'd love the power to go to war at a whim; wait they already do.

Every one in here is missing the fucking point. There are three evils that influence the government; Bankers, the Military Industrial Complex, and the Big fucking Business. There comes a point in time when an organization becomes so big that it fails to see the negative effects it is causing, I'm looking at you British Petroleum or better known as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and you Wall Street. The previous list can go on and on.

This whole; party, free market, regulated market, class warfare and the rest are all things that keep the people from seeing the real problem; lobbyists, and corrupt officials. The whole culture of government needs to change.

Partisan politics, keep fucking that chicken.

this is BP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iranian_Oil_Company

Sorry berticus, and dag, but based on the abstracts of those two studies, neither of them refute the points I was making. The second study does not discuss body hair. The first study discusses women's views of male body hair; but this thread was focused on men's views of female body hair, so that is what I addressed.

In my earlier post, I specifically said that evolution would drive people to favor the characteristics generally displayed by the opposite sex. Men generally have more body hair than women, women should therefore generally find attractiveness in levels of body hair higher than what women have. This idea is not in disagreement with the idea that human evolution in general disfavors body hair. "Disfavors" is relative, and feelings about body hair are not binary propositions.

If you have a species with a full coat of hair, like a gorilla, and a full coat has evolutionary advantage, then you would expect evolution to predispose the individuals to preferring the full coat. If circumstances then changed such that, for example a coat only 50% as thick provided the same benefits, and there was some disadvantage to the hair in general, then the net result is that evolution would favor the 50% coat over the full thickness coat. Given enough time, it would be natural for evolution to then predispose the individuals to prefer the 50% coat also. How this preference would manifest itself psychologically is another issue; It could be that individuals would find a 100% coat attractive but a 50% coat more attractive, or they could find the 100% coat unattractive. Repeat this process for a change to 25% coat, 10%, 5%, etc. Evolution would clearly be disfavoring body hair, even though at any point in time the individuals may prefer some amount of it.

Regardless of the specifics of how it happened, it is a fact that humans have significantly less hair than their ancestors. You must agree this is a result of evolution; the alternative is to claim it's magic. This change occurred early in human evolution, long before magazines or fashion or cosmetics industries. For our comparative hairlessness to be so universal, it had to have been a widespread issue in sexual and/or natural selection. For it to have been widespread, there would almost certainly had to have been a strong benefit.

With regards to the second study, just because one feature(body size) is influenced by culture does not mean others must be also. And even if a particular trait is influenced by culture, it does not mean that evolution's influence is smaller. You can't even use that study to say that those who prefer the thinner body type are shallow or vain or whatever. What would such a claim even mean? The only way to meaningfully argue against the preference for the thinner body type would be to show that that body type is unhealthy. You can argue that only in the most extreme cases, i.e. anorexia, but the study was not addressing extreme thinness. Nor can you make much of an argument that those who prefer thinness are being abnormally picky; a preference for larger bodies is every bit as much a preference as one for thin bodies. Due to the wording of the abstract, the best you could say is that those who prefer thin bodies are slightly more picky than those who prefer larger ones. Also, the fact that these two different cultures have different preferences could easily have a reasonable explanation behind it. Such as, it's an unfortunate fact that African Americans in general have had a lower socio-economic status than Anglo Americans throughout American history, with this problem having been much worse even in the relatively recent past. Peoples with poor access to resources tend to more favorably view displays of wealth, and a large body size is a sign of ready access to food. This dynamic can be seen in other cultures throughout history.

You accused me of confirmation bias, berticus. I could easily say the same of you. You were already in disagreement with my position, you found these two studies, at a quick glance they seemed to be ammunition against me, so you referenced them without bothering to spend time thinking about what the claims in the abstracts might mean. Indeed, you point out that it only took "2 seconds" to find them; taking two seconds to find them would be moot if it took 10 minutes figuring out what they meant. I could argue that your statement of a two second search time therefore indicates you did not take the time to carefully read or think about what you found. I don't know if this is the case or not, I'm merely pointing out that your claim of confirmation bias is unfounded and works both ways.

And in general, even if something is predominantly determined by culture, that does not mean there is something wrong with the preference. Nor does something being "natural" or set by evolution mean it must be right. Evolution could favor something that is 99% bad if what it is replacing is bad 99.9% of the time. This is the issue that started this conversation. Dag's comment stated that people who prefer hairlessness are in the wrong since having hair is "natural". But this is meaningless, because not only is it "natural" that our species is losing its hair, but "natural" has no bearing on whether something is good or bad. Our constantly increasing ability to do the unnatural is what, in part, sets us apart from the rest of the animals. Vaccines, antibiotics, computers, fortified foods, and space exploration are all examples of things that are both unnatural and good for society.

If a person wants to modify their body in an "unnatural" way, more power to them. As long as they are not harming others, you have no place to claim any moral objection. And if they are not even harming themselves, you have no means to mount any kind of meaningful objection whatsoever. In the case of piercings, you could, for example, argue that there is a possibility of infection or inadvertently being snagged and ripped out; but with modern clothing and shelter for temperature control and protection from the sun, no such argument can be made against body hair removal.

>> ^dag:

Yes, this. @sineral- it's an interesting idea- but I call BS that no hair is an indicator for biological fitness.>> ^berticus:
sineral, say hello to our friend confirmatory bias.
took 2 seconds to find this and this. don't ignore evidence that isn't what you want to hear.

The fed is a contrived system of debt that will stir-fry the United States' and the other inbred anglo's countries hold on world government and finance....word to the wise, gold and foreign futures should be where you stash for the coming cold years-I mean to expatriate and head to tourist-rich havens.......

>> ^Jesus_Freak:
Anyone who was raised Catholic and can't answer "what was so special about Jesus" either wasn't listening or was horribly underserved in the teaching department.
What I did find refreshing from this clip (compared to the buh-zillion other atheism clips on the sift) was his willingness to live and let live in terms of other people's beliefs with minimal judgmentalism. I find "evangelical atheists" to be a bit ironic.


You find "evangelical atheist" ironic only because you are too much of an idiot to understand what evangelical really means. It means "to bring good news", hence the "Good News" ("gospel" in anglo-saxon, from "goodspell" NOT "godspell") of the coming of Jesus. Thus an "evangelical atheist" is the bringer of the good news of atheism. Pretty straightforward, eh?

What's really ironic, on the other hand, is exactly the content of the joke about the specialness of Jesus. We are all sons of God, says Jesus himself, yet the church would like us to believe Jesus was somehow special. Yes, Jesus says he is the the son of God but he also says we all are sons of God. Why is he special then? The answer: he's not and he never claimed to be. Only people who never really read (understood) the Bible, but only had it read (interpreted) to them instead can say that Jesus was special. Yes, that means the Trinity is bust and the reformists are "right" but all these theological debates are moot when you realize Jesus considered himself a simple, very much human, messenger and nothing more (much like the Mohammad of Islam). And of course, that we put so much energy on explaining fairy tales seems really ludicrous and somewhat sad when you realize there is no such thing as God.

Your video, Man With Metal Detector Finds Gold Anglo-Saxon Artifacts, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

ugh,
this is terrible.
is she even sure SHE is wiccan?
she references buddhism,egyptology,druids,greeks,zoarorastrian,anglo-saxTon(that made me lol).
i respect her desire to express her inner-spirituality,but i dont think its wise she make a teaching video.
by her statements i take her more for pagan than wiccan.

The so-called Smug-Bastard sense, is a sense used to detect those of Demon-kin. The red skinned cloven-hoofed type that invade our plane of existence and try to tempt and turn us into kindling for the big red horned dude under the ground.

All those non-believing non-religious heathen bastards are going to burn in the everlasting flames of hell for all eternity. While... I.. a believer... a TRUE(tm) UNSMUG(tm)believer of the only true faith out of many thousands and thousands throughout human history will not suffer such a fate.

I will fly up into the magical sky heaven and live with winged sky fairies with bird wings, basking in the sun of my bearded white anglo-saxon god.

Now, on the other hand if they would just repent, give in, and profess total and complete belief in the ultiate fairytale known as the Bible.. literally, and unquestioningly supporting EVERY word in the Bible 100% as absolute truth. Then.. and only then would I consider them an equal. An equal under heaven.

I am not smug in the least. I am simply a servant of God. Praised and GLORY to him. God Bless the USA, for God prefers US over them.

>> ^kulpims:
Schatzi



lol... Schatzi.
When are the Slavs gonna raise up and conquer the anglo-americans already? Their time is over anyway.

I get really annoyed by white anglo-saxon protestants too. And not just european ones either.

Anglo-American law, and Scalia especially, is very different from European law and this interview is a perfect example of how American judges focus on the letter of the law as opposed to the idea behind the law (so to speak). I could explain it in more detail, but 2 bottles of wine makes me not bother.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Best laugh I had in a while.


Since you saw this *actionpack *commercial in its original French version?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Olympic-Ski-Shooting-Revamped

I'm not calling dupe here, however, seeing as how it's been conveniently translated to English for all yous anglos.

>> ^mharvey42:
Yet more evidence that Britain has slipped into dhimmitude; it lives by the whim of it's Mohammadan-troglodyte invaders


There was a similar protest in Portland, OR yesterday, with many of the protesters being anglos. Concerning this, I don't think anyone is living by the whims of arab immigrants; I think people are living by the conviction that genocide is wrong.