Which is one of the biggest reasons I believe he is beat Bill Maher in the ratings on his own network. Maher, even when he's right, is quite a bit of an arrogant prick. And an all time prick when he's wrong (or trying to apologize).
Oliver is endearing and likeable because he doesn't take himself too seriously and lacks that arrogance.

Of course you stand by your statement, because you it is what you really want to believe, and you are too lazy / ignorant / arrogant, to assume that anyone who disagrees is telling the truth or doing their jobs properly. Which the news are. Which the school is (belatedly). Etc.

"Lewisville Independent School District (ISD) interim superintendent Kevin Rogers announced that their week-long investigation into the February 13 sign incident was conducted through a variety of means. Those included witness interviews, including Flower Mound High School (FMHS) and Lewisville ISD administrators, staff, students and spectators; an in-depth review of surveillance and game footage; social media research; and cooperative, continued communication between FMHS and Plano-East Senior High School (PESH) administrators."

Sorry for the later reply, I never check my profile... I just thought you would want to reward these guys by giving them views, since you agree with the message they're trying to convey with the video? I mean... you seem to agree with the message they're trying to convey, ie calling attention to the implicit arrogance and privilege in many of charity-video, so it seemed it would be sensible to reward them, I thought.

Just to reply to this one statement, he only starts out as a raving father and only turned into a violent asshole when the asshole with the camera was dismissive, arrogant, and flippant, taunting him into responding with more than words.

I think it's obvious the father probably had a valid reason to be upset with the camera guy. It's just too big a leap to think a guy would go that berserk over casual bad driving, and camera guy's attitude proves he was probably getting a kick out of causing road rage but was too pussy to back up his cowardly bullshit any more than it took him to barely roll down the window.

it's lost on you how arrogant you statement is... thus making the "pompous response" comment absolutely hilarious

It's a demonstration of human nature, really. That's exactly how human men are genetically encoded to treat women.

I'd argue that our genetic encoding would make us treat women as resources and in a much more violent fashion too.

I think the "don't hit a girl" attitude is a construct of our societal/cultural nature and it's an attempt to civilise the animal instinct to "take a mate" without regard to the females wishes at all.

I would imagine that over a long period of time, this was an important first step. Yes, it's still misogynistic, but I'm guessing it's preferable to simply fighting over females and then mating with them.

But you'd hope that we'd have moved past that by now.

Otherwise, you're just an animal that happens to walk upright.

It would be nice if we were animals that had learned how to think as well, but I fear Terry Pratchett got it right with this quote:

The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.

I was actually trying to get across it is really arrogant to assume because WE radio all over the place, that makes it the intelligent way to go. Also, the fact that there doesn't seem to be any civilizations populating the cosmos might be because, like us, it would take too much resources for everyone else as much as us. Maybe there really isn't any way to get around faster than light, and therefore not even close to it.

I couldn't even make it to the full minute mark. I think the video posted and related where Sean Carroll responds to the idea of a fine tuned universe is a good response.

This video is likely made by the same sort of people who once argued that "just a few feet in either direction and life on Earth couldn't exist". Of course the Earth doesn't have a circular orbit, and our Sun's Goldilocks zone extends from just past Venus (Earth side) to past Mars. Leaving both Earth and Mars well within the habitable zone.

My bigger problem with the video is you are trying to get to point Z, and saying it had to go through A-Y first in specific order. This is an argument used frequently against Evolution. The huge odds you'd have to go through to get to a modern human in the time allowed is greatly against modern humans forming when they did. Problem is you are working from the end result back, rather than the starting point and going forward, and it you are also discounting some other forces of nature. I used to quote the mathematical problem myself when I was a Creationist, though an Old Earth one as I was long of the opinion that Young Earth Creationist make Christians look stupid.

I may be an atheist, but I have no problem with a God of the Gaps if people want to believe that. I however don't believe that Jehovah is that God (there's too much evidence against Him, such as the fact He couldn't or wouldn't reveal himself beyond a tiny little backwater tribe, not to people in the Americas or Asia or Europe, but to one tiny group of people, either He's a Racist, which makes Him unworthy of serving, or He's not any more real than any of the other so called Gods). Whatever, or Whomever may have kick-started the Universe into existence didn't do it for some divine plan for mankind. The arrogance that it takes to assume the Universe in all it's glory was created just to awe man, or for whatever other reasons related to man and our involvement with Jehovah is arrogance beyond belief.

EDIT: Perhaps the better related video would have been http://videosift.com/video/Pure-Imagination-1

Don't understand why you are asking that question? The video is the answer, and it's summarised for you in the description. The answer is that they were handed a piece of paper that did not have any current (at the time) American law on it - but were misled by someone into thinking that it was. I hope that's clear enough and i've highlighted it so you can see it easily.

Are you trying to make a point, or did you not get that from the seventeen different ways it was said in the video and description?

Additionally to that point, i strongly suspect that in the professional legal industry, mistakes like that simply do not happen by accident. They are at the very top some of the most important legal decisions being made in the entire world, and i'm supposed to believe that they accidentally overlooked something that had been decided over 30 years ago and entirely changed police policy? Whoops i just printed off a 30 year old law, and i thought it was the present day one? Do you think the members of the jury didn't think, "Hmmm, are you sure it's legal to shoot random people as long as they're running away? We don't see that very often anymore.... Odd!" And when they ask that they're told, "Well there's the law right there for ya, i'm as surprised as you but i won't double check the modernity of it!" Only to be told days before the decision that perhaps maybe parts of the second bit of the bit i gave you earlier might not be valid, but we don't want to get into technicalities here, don't worry about it.

It's fucking corrupt, someone's (more likely to be many people) pulled a fast one... but worse still, someone's pulled a fast one on a HUGELY important case and had the arrogance to think they'd get away with something that simple. When you think of the protests in Ferguson and many many people showing support, how could they be so flippant? It doesn't just point towards racism, it confirms every racist suspicion that you might have had about the American legal system. It's not a one-off when it happens at the very top of the pyramid, that's how the best of the legal eagles in America deals with the problem of a white policeman killing a black man.... it was his fault, he's bad, he deserved it.

They were right under the microscope here - are you racist? And what did they do? Surely this is evidence of a system that lets down black people, and therefore it urgently needs to be fixed... and what about past offenders? I'd be pretty angry, if i were a black American. It's not just a let down, it's a dupe.

Maybe the first time I've been happy to receive a downvote. A suitably and if I may say so, attractively, nerdy analysis.

I don't know, the Batman I know might just have been arrogant enough to try something like this - he did once fistfight a bunch of white martians. Or this could be the fight as it plays out in his head while he's deciding he needs a better plan, if you've read Midnighter you know what I'm talking about.

I always thought the dark side was unreasonably maligned. That old Batman as a green lantern story was a disappointment; I now want to read a book about Batman growing up in the Star Wars universe...learning about the force...deciding the Sith had to be dealt with...

It's like I said: I love this film. I've seen it over a hundred times. (I've probably seen it 150 times by now.)

I've always been of the belief he was stuck for over 100 years, not just because of the time to do and perfect the things he did and learned, but because of how difficult it would really be to completely eradicate all traces of selfishness, arrogance, and patronization and replace them with honest, deep compassion and consideration for others and with truly unselfish motives.

As an aside, I've always been extremely curious to know what exactly transpired between Murray and Ramis during the filming of this movie that cause the rift that was never mended even until Rarmis' passing.

Hey robbersdog49, thanks for the level headed reply. I'll address your comments in a few pieces here:

The origin of life and Darwinian evolution are two entirely different things. Regardless of how you believe the first life came about we do know from the fossil record and evidence about the way the environment and climate changed on earth in those early millennia that the first life was simple single cell organisms.

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it. The Cambrian explosion for example, where basically every type of animal body plan comes into existence at around the same time, contradicts the idea that these things happened gradually over long periods of time. In fact, a new theory was invented called "punctuated equilibrium" which says that the reason we aren't finding the transitional fossils is that the changes happen too quickly to be found in the fossil record. Instead of a theory based on the evidence, we have a theory to explain away the lack of evidence.

Evolution is the process which turned these very simple life forms into the complex forms you see all around you today. It's an ongoing process and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming. The reason we have hundreds of different breeds of dogs is because of micro evolution. Darwin discovered this and all the credit should go to him, but where the leap of faith took place was when he supposed that because we see changes within species, that therefore all life evolved from a common ancestor. This claim is not substantiated scientifically. You cannot see macro evolution taking place anywhere in the world, and you cannot find the transitional fossils to say it ever took place. You cannot test it in a laboratory, it is a historical claim based on weak circumstantial evidence.

Science doesn't know exactly how life first came about. It doesn't claim to. We know that it did because we're here, but how? Not sure. But that's not a problem, science doesn't claim to know everything. Science is a process we use to find out about the world around us. It's not a book with all the answers.

Science is all about what we don't know. It's a process of discovery, and you can't discover something you already know. Religious people like to show any gap in the knowledge of scientists as showing they are frauds, or know nothing and that this means their own views must be true. That's just a stupid logical fallacy. Just because no one else has the answer doesn't mean you can just claim your version must be correct.

Science not being able to tell us how life started has no effect on the validity of the statement 'God did it'.

The God of the gaps fallacy is simply a red herring in these conversations. I don't purport to say that because science can't explain something, that means God did it. Science is all about the principle of parsimony; what theory has the best explanatory power. I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained. I think the evidence we do understand, in physics, biology, cosmology and information theory overwhelmingly points to design for many good reasons that have nothing to do with the God of the gaps fallacy.

There is also it seems a point of pride for those who think the best position is to say "I don't know", and accusing anyone who thinks they do know as being wrong headed, arrogant, or whatever. It's a very curious position to take because there are plenty of things we can know. No one is going to take the position that if you say the answer to 2 + 2 is 4 and you deny that any other answer is valid, you are arrogant or using fallacious reasoning. Yet, it is arrogrant and fallacious to those who think that science is the sole arbitor of truth when someone who believes in God points to a Creator as the best explanation. They think that because they believe no one else could know the answer except through scientific discovery. You have to realize that is a faith based claim and not an evidence based claim. You think that way when you place your faith in science as what is going to give you the correct answers about how and why you are here. I like these quotes for Robert Jastrow, who was an Astronomer and physicist:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law."

As for the age of the earth, there's a huge amount of evidence which says it's about 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. That's plenty of time for evolution to take us from simple single cell life to the complex animals we've become today.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth. That video I provided shows the evidences I am talking about.

It's not punishment. It's fucking arrogance. He took it upon himself to 'teach' a lesson to the first driver without regard to anyone else. How is that any better than the driver who decided that his need to be in a hurry and block the intersection was more important?

Assuming of course that is what happened, perhaps the driver misjudged the light and got stuck rather than run the light? We don't know what led to the car being in the intersection, only that some random prick decided to take it solely upon himself to stand in front of the car as a supposed lesson. I don't know about you, but in the 21st century, I think that we should have advanced past petty vigilantism. Which is all this is, one person taking it upon themselves to be the sole decider of wrongdoing and punishment. Does that sound like something we as a society wants to promote? Because if it is, then it would have been just as fair for the driver of one of those cars to grab a hold of that jackass and toss him back onto the sidewalk in a bloody heap.

The ass was begging to be hit or cause someone else to be hit by the cars going past the one he was blocking. He isn't some sort of hero who 'took a stand' against evil and wrongdoing, he is just a self-righteous dick.

The guy is just as much of a dick as the guy blocking the lane. Why, you ask?

Well, as you can clearly see, he is not only 'punishing' the car blocking the lane, but he is also causing people behind the car to be held up and also creating a situation very conducive to causing accidents as those people jockey to get around the blockage. Did all those people force the person in the car to block the lane? Why should they be punished for the actions of one other driver?

Basically the protester's arrogance equals or exceeds that of the driver he is 'teaching a lesson'.

@Truckchase
i was referring to how harris was crying on how he is so misunderstood and how everybody is getting his ideas wrong,or misrepresenting them.
i agree with him when he postulates that some people may be misrepresenting him to further their own agenda but i found it beneath him to whine due to disagreements with certain people who were just espousing their opinion based on his words.

maybe write clearer and more succinct in order to convey your ideas?

as a philosopher he should be accustomed to this,it is practically expected but it can further the discussion.

meh..thats how i took it anyways.just my opinion.

@gwiz665
you were the guy who encouraged me to look further into harris work.which i did.
and happily so..i found him far more reasonable and nuanced than my original impression.

so thank you my friend.

the arrogance i am speaking of is in the latter part of the video where harris does the two-step when cenk calls him out on some of his positions in regards to foreign policy.

you cannot acknowledge that certain historical events were monsterous and then double back and suggest we still have moral authority to USE the very same power structure,that only a second ago you admitted had perpetrated inhuman crimes,to impose your own sense of what a society should be.

and THEN,when cenk doubles down and calls you out AGAIN,suggest that what you are REALLY asking is just a hypothetical "philisophical" question.not actually offering a policy solution.

another point harris got stuck on and,in my opinion,where his REAL arrogance was exposed,is to suggest that democracy is the best form of government but islamic nations are not ready and would need a 20year buffer and maybe the western worlds could place a leader in order to help the transition towards democracy.

check,point.match.

this is where harris always loses me.i understand his criticisms of religion,others have done it far better than him but when he dips his toes into foreign policy,history and politics he wades into waters where his expertise is revealed to be severely lacking.

harris makes many exceptional points and i love that when given time (which cenk gave him) a lot of his ideas are allowed to flourish and blossom.this is a good thing.i may not be a harris fan but i am most certainly not a harris hater either.

i just dont think he is the best atheist thinker out there.