>> ^shagen454:

ugh


lee

*talks *femmes

Who knows better than Ann what it's like to be a black person in America? Oh right, people who aren't shrill white harpies.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I thought that Ann Coulter was the ugliest woman in the world.

Omg, that was the exact same reaction I had! You are right. A TRULY ugly human being.

I thought that Ann Coulter was the ugliest woman in the world.

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Well actually I cheated, I did a google image search with the url of your avatar image :

I'm sure that I used to actually know things, once upon a time, before there was a google!
In reply to this comment by pumkinandstorm:
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
I like the Stanley Lau Catwoman avatar : Have your earlier ones been by Lau as well? I never actually looked them up.

I'm so impressed that you recognized this as Stanley Lau's! I actually came across it by accident recently but I LOVE his work! The other cat woman I had up was Anne Hathaway from the recent Batman movie. I thought this was a fun change. :


That's very resourceful of you! I am just as impressed by THAT!

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
I like the Stanley Lau Catwoman avatar : Have your earlier ones been by Lau as well? I never actually looked them up.

I'm so impressed that you recognized this as Stanley Lau's! I actually came across it by accident recently but I LOVE his work! The other cat woman I had up was Anne Hathaway from the recent Batman movie. I thought this was a fun change.

Wow, Ann was pretty smokin'

>> ^Tojja:

Missed the boat a little, but for those who want to read the most intelligent summary of the salient scientific considerations associated with abortion, have a read of an article by Carl Sagan himself (co-written by Ann Druyan). Absolutely thought provoking and relevant: http://2think.org/abortion.shtml
Thanks for the link! I especially appreciate that Sagan brings the science and facts to bear in his consideration, and it's impossible to argue with his methodology. I have to say there's something personally gratifying in that we've trodden some of the same ground in our little dialectic.


Sure, I disagree with his ultimate conclusion, but that's because I believe there's a distinction between human cognition and human consciousness (or "ensoulment" as he terms it).

Missed the boat a little, but for those who want to read the most intelligent summary of the salient scientific considerations associated with abortion, have a read of an article by Carl Sagan himself (co-written by Ann Druyan). Absolutely thought provoking and relevant: http://2think.org/abortion.shtml

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by ReverendTed.

A few key pictures seem to be missing...

The Napalm Girl picture, which just turned 40 last month.

The KSU Shooting picture of Mary Ann Vecchio.

The V-J Day in Times Square kiss.

The National Geographic picture of Sharbat Gula, although that might not fit the mold the rest of them do, that one is just great photo and not so much a moment caught the way the others are.

Of course I guess we could all point to pictures that caught a moment that we think should have been added to the list...

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Why is this? Surely the intent matters. Take Ann Coulter, for instance. She often couches the ridiculous stuff she says in humor. Now the humor isn't usually very good, but suppose it was. Would that somehow magically make the content of what she is saying OK?

You're missing the point. Of course the intent matters. The intent goes to whether it's funny. Nothing Ann Coulter says can be funny because she's a fucking idiot. On the other hand, Stephen Colbert could repeat an exact speech of hers verbatim and be hilarious.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

If she's using humor to promulgate an ignorant and bigoted worldview, we can still call her out on the ignorance and bigotry.

Yep and that's exactly what we do. I want to break this down a bit.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

If she's using humor....

I would replace "using humor" with "attempting to use humour".

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

... to promulgate an ignorant and bigoted worldview...

and that's the point. Coulter isn't funny because she actually believes the vile crap she's espousing. If someone makes a joke about rape and actually believes that rape is in anyway acceptable.... that's not funny. If someone is using a joke about a horrific situation to make you think or take you to such an uncomfortable place that your only escape is to laugh at it, that's comedy genius.


>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Patrice O'Neal is a more pertinent example, and I talked about this in the other thread. He was a genuinely funny guy, and in his act (and elsewhere) he said a lot of horrible things about women. The thing is, he actually meant a lot of that stuff. Even his close friends admit that he was an actual misogynist. Does the fact that he was also funny somehow make his misogyny inoffensive?

I don't really want to comment on this because I'm not really familiar with O'Neals work or life. But let's assume for the sake of argument that what you say is true. It's possible to be really funny and still say unfunny things. If he was genuinely promoting misogyny is some of his material, did you still find it funny?

Personally, if something feels that wrong to me, I find it hard to see humour in it.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Also, I think there are two separate points to consider here that some people (not necessarily you) are getting mixed up: (1) Are rape jokes funny?, (2) Are rape jokes offensive? The answer to both questions is "Some of them are." And the thing is, sometimes the exact same joke can be both funny and offensive. These properties can coexist.

I don't really believe so. A funny joke can be shocking, uncomfortable or even borderline offensive, but if you're actually laughing at something, the joke itself was not sufficiently offensive to become unfunny.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Even if Tosh's joke had been hilarious (which it obviously wasn't) it still would have been really dickish, and I still would have thought that he ought to make a genuine apology to the woman if he is a decent human being.


To me, it's about your own moral compass. Toshs joke wasn't funny precisely because there was only dickishness to a relatively innocent victim (I say relatively because she went to his show, it's not like he's an unknown).

>> ^ChaosEngine:

My take on the subject is simple: is it funny?
That's the end of it where comedy is concerned. Regardless of what was said, if the content, delivery and context all add up to humour, then by definition it's not offensive to me.


Why is this? Surely the intent matters. Take Ann Coulter, for instance. She often couches the ridiculous stuff she says in humor. Now the humor isn't usually very good, but suppose it was. Would that somehow magically make the content of what she is saying OK? I don't think so. If she's using humor to promulgate an ignorant and bigoted worldview, we can still call her out on the ignorance and bigotry.

Patrice O'Neal is a more pertinent example, and I talked about this in the other thread. He was a genuinely funny guy, and in his act (and elsewhere) he said a lot of horrible things about women. The thing is, he actually meant a lot of that stuff. Even his close friends admit that he was an actual misogynist. Does the fact that he was also funny somehow make his misogyny inoffensive?

Also, I think there are two separate points to consider here that some people (not necessarily you) are getting mixed up: (1) Are rape jokes funny?, (2) Are rape jokes offensive? The answer to both questions is "Some of them are." And the thing is, sometimes the exact same joke can be both funny and offensive. These properties can coexist. An actual racist can make a funny race joke, just like an actual misogynist can make a funny joke about women. The funniness does not erase the fact that these jokes, considering the intent behind them, should be condemned. Even if Tosh's joke had been hilarious (which it obviously wasn't) it still would have been really dickish, and I still would have thought that he ought to make a genuine apology to the woman if he is a decent human being.

Misleading video title and description.
Nowhere in the original video says it's unknown.
Coalescence cascade is a known and documented phenomenon.

Here's a scientific paper from 1998 that talks about it: http://www.ann.jussieu.fr/~frey/papers/coalescence/Chen%20L.,%20The%20coalescence%20of%20bubbles%20-%20a%20numerical%20study.pdf
And here's another article from 2000 that mentions previous research from the 1960s: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PhFl...12.1265T

>> ^oritteropo:

What do you mean by "people like you"? Who are you lumping me in with? How does it affect you, personally, if politicians in a far off land make decisions that neither of us would agree with in our homelands?
Please either mark your other profile comment as private or edit it to remove my comment or delete it, I didn't want my comment public or I would not have ticked the private box.
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^oritteropo:
Have you ever studied the French Revolution? Ron Paul's policies didn't go so well for Turgot, and haven't for anyone else who has tried them since.
I guess since neither of us are U.S. based we can always sit back and watch the spectacle from afar, eating popcorn, no matter what they try
Looks like you have studied the french revolution, but not what Ron Paul actually wants to do, or rather will be able to do.
And yes I guess its easy to sit back and eat popcorn for people like you.



Why does it have to affect me personally? I mean it affects me, but not directly (thankfully I dont live in one of those countries where it would), though there is no denying that the US has a huge influence on my country aswell. I can think around the next corner. I know how decisions in foreign policy of a superpower affect people on the whole world. You can see it every day. You want to tell me that it doesnt affect the whole world how the US has treated the middle east for the last 5+ decades? Do you really think they hate the US and their supporters because they are "free"? Do you think they wont forget that the US and other western countries supported the "Israelis" all the way where they are today? What would you do if someone took a good chunk of your property and just give it someone else? And a few decades later all you have left is only a spot for you to sleep and defecate on, because everything else has been taken by those, and you are treated like criminals by them and the majority of the world, because they control media in said superpower and you dont. Who would you blame for that? Only the one taking your land or also the one who allowed them to take it and continue to support them?
Or are you hiding behind your hypocrite ethics and moral by saying "thats not an excuse"?

The Vietnam war, based on lies, the attack on Iraq 2003, based on lies, etc, etc, etc, didnt affect the world??? It didnt affect me? How can you think that? Do you really think other regimes dont look at the USA and think to themselves, if they are the biggest hypocrites on this earth, why cant we be? There are enough examples for that, even in Europe. European governments suddenly made as bad and audacious decisions in foreign and internal policies and were inspired by the sudden and open showing of totalitarianism. Some even follow the US like they are their lapdogs. That doesnt affect me or anyone in the world?

Sorry, but if you dont realize how a superpower like the US acting with such massive and audacious hypocrisy, for every human on this earth with an IQ higher than 50 to see, then I have nothing else to say.