@newtboy

I do think the 'arab world' has legitimate complaints

Gonna stop you there, I never said anything about validity or number of complaints or grievances anyone had. In a better world things like that would matter, in a military conflict though they don't change the outcome.

I see no chance for a single state (where non Jews are sub-citizens with no vote or power) or an Israeli designed two state...

You misunderstand me. I said nothing about the chances of those outcomes working for Palestinians or even being better for them. I stated that whether we like it or not, Israel has more than the required military might to do so and whichever moment they decide the cost of implementing one of those options is better than the status quo they are gonna do it. Do you really see 'no chance' of that happening?

I don't think propaganda is that important to them that they actually prefer their allies suffering to reasonable resolutions, but I don't think that any reasonable resolutions are being offered or even discussed.

Then on this we vehemently disagree. Israel wasn't the only one that expanded their borders in the war in 1948. The Arab Palestinians allies snatched up parcels of land as well. They haven't even considered ceding that land back to facilitate a Palestinian state. In fact, Israel's very existence is pretty widely accepted as being due to the fact that each neighbouring Arab state went to war with the intent of securing sections of Palestine fro themselves and thus each fought independently giving Israel a chance to survive facing off against each of them rather than facing a united coalition in a co-ordinated strike. That they all mobilized their forces and sent them in the second they could to try and get the most land allowed Israel to fight them, with the exception of Jordan whom Israel cut a deal with by agreeing to not fight for the land Jordan wanted so jordan just silently took that part of Palestine for themselves.

In short, the neighbouring Arab states are not true allies to Arab Palestinians.

Your video, Curb your misunderstanding, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I see, that was both unclear and unadvisable....but I'll play along.....
I think you misunderstand, they want reparations for a past theft that was never recouped or returned. The Nazis returned what they stole and paid dearly for their crimes, and they admit and have shame for the crimes of their nation/countrymen. Slave owners couldn't return the lost lives, families, property, or cultures, and largely didn't even try to pay compensation, and they and their descendants have acted like releasing the slaves WAS reparation AND just punishment for the kidnappers/slavers, so any further complaint is unjustified.

The sins of the father are the father's, but if the son takes the money dad stole and lives on it, knowing it's stolen, then the son is complicit. If my dad kidnaps your child and rapes it to death, and makes a fortune selling tickets to the event, I'm a complicit monster if I live on that money instead of giving it to you even if I wasn't born when he did it....no?

It's largely because the crimes have never been addressed and also because the victims are still, to this day, harassed and attacked as if they were the kidnappers rather than the victims.
If your mother was kidnapped, worked to death, and you were shunned and denied because of it, and so were your children and grandchildren, would you not want your great grandchildren to try to get justice for her from the people whose wealth was created by selling people like her? Would you not hold a grudge against them?

Considering the wrath provoked by niggling perceived slights against the right, can you even imagine how you and they would react if positions were reversed? I think they would demand deportation of the descendants of slave owners and forfeiture of all their assets, judging from recent behavior.

As someone who went through 2 rounds of sex ed -- through my family's church (better than you think, but not by much), and public school (worse than you think; mostly consisting of "here's a picture of a dick with gonorrhea, LOOK AT IT"), it seems like videos like this available through YouTube are likely to be a massive improvement on practical sex ed. So kudos to the consistently awesome Green brothers for figuring that out and doing something about it!

However, I would point out a misleading bit in the YT text:
"Probabilities eventually collapse into reality, and then that couple no longer has a 2% chance of probability, they have a 100% chance, because they're pregnant, and everyone else has a 0% chance."

...Yeah, not really. That couple is still subject to the 2% probability, they just happen to be one of the statistically (mildly) unlikely examples that make the chance 2% instead of 0. And much more importantly, everyone else still has a 2% chance, not a 0% chance.

Misunderstanding statistics / probability in that way leads to all kinds of erroneous assumptions and behavior. Like putting a huge bet on red + even in roulette because the past 5 hits have been black + odd and red + even is "due". Or driving around with no seat belt because someone you know was just in an accident, thereby biting the "statistical bullet" and making everybody else safe for a while. Every roll of the dice is a new event with the same odds as the roll before it.

I dont get it, how does the US misunderstand Putin?

Probably have to watch these interviews. Putin always says well what he wants to say. He can outlast a smart US president and he can take advantage of a dumb one.

Putin is occupying large parts of a sovereign country in Europe, basically getting away with murder, but for Oliver he is a nice friendly guy, willing to be interviewed, with an interesting outlook on world peace. Wolf among sheep preaching vegetarianism.

What I heard was him saying the adult that had sex with him when he was a 14 year old boy did nothing wrong. Did I misunderstand him?

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that complete, unbiased, factual reporting is the reader's responsibility to find and consume, not a reporter's responsibility to produce?
How would one even go about that without being an investigative reporter themselves? The fact checking and filtering needed to find factual unbiased complete information is a full time job, completely impossible for most people. IMO, when reporters are found to be "reporting" biased opinion that confuses fact with hyperbolic opinion it should be considered a crime against humanity and prosecuteable, not applauded and rewarded, or even tolerated, no matter what side of what issue they support.

@bcglorf
i was gonna respond,and most likely fail,in expressing what @radx nailed.

which,again,embarasses the fuck out of me,because @radx is german and english is his second language and he STILL beats me to a pulp when talking about these matters.

but i will add that we NEED dissenting voices.
we NEED people critical of power,the excesses of power and the abuse of power.

i totally agree with you Bc that we need balance,but for that balance to even EXIST,we have to have all voices heard.

how can you or i come to a well reasoned,and rationale conclusion if parts of the book are not even being allowed to be spoken out loud?
because it just happens to conflict with a current narrative the political elite are trying to shove down our throats.

the dynamic is NOT republican vs democrat,nor liberal vs conservative.

the dynamic is power vs powerlessness.

and let me be clear,because maybe some here are misunderstanding my support of hedges as somehow translating to supporting putin.

this is false.
i support hedges because of his stellar work.
putin is a thug who murders political enemies and challengers,and russia itself is dominated by oligarchs.russia is a fucking mess.

these are two separate issues,and to conflate them and apply that metric to my words is simply wrong.

@ChaosEngine
agreed.
context matters and i think being a decent human being plays a large role in that dynamic.

people tend to attempt to break down complex ideas and/or ideologies into more easily digestible morsels.this "twitter speak",in my opinion,is largely responsible for the decay of human interactions.

we all are biased.
we all hold prejudices,and preconceptions based on our learned experiences.
which are subjective.

we see the world through the lens of our own subjectivity and even the most open minded and non-judgemental person,when trying to sympathize/empathize with another person, will use their own subjective understandings in order to understand that person.

this tactic,which we all employ,will almost always fall short of true understanding.

so we rely on words,metaphors,allegory etc etc in order to communicate fairly complex emotions and experiences.

what brendon o'neill is pointing out,is that when we start to restrict words as acceptable and unacceptable,we infantilize our interactions.

words are inert.
they are simply symbols representing a thing,action or emotion.
it is WE who apply the deeper meanings by way of our subjective lens.

i am not trying to make something simple complicated,but bear with me.
a rock will always be a rock,but a cunt has a totally different meaning here in the states than in britain.(love you brits,and cunt is a brilliant word).

the problems of culture,region,nationality or race all play a role in not only how we communicate but how that communication is received ...and interpreted.

so misunderstandings can happen quite easily,and then when we consider that the persons intent is by far the greatest metric to judge the veracity of the words being spoken,and just how difficult it is to discern that intent....this is where nuance and context play such a major role,but we need to have as many tools in our language box to express oftentimes very difficult concepts,multi-layered emotions and complicated ideologies.

and,unfortunately,there are attempts to legislate speech.

of course well intentioned,and reasonable sounding,but like any legislation dealing with the subjective nature of humans,has the possibility of abuse.

case in point:http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

a new canadian addendum to their human rights statute.on the surface this is a fairly benign addition to canadas already existing human rights laws,but there is the possibility of abuse.

a psychology professor from university of toronto was critical of this new addendum,and has created a flurry of controversy in regards to his criticism.

which you can check out here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

now he was protested,received death threats,there was even violence and a new internet star was born affectionately labeled "smugglypuff".

see:http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/smugglypuff

i agree that free speech cannot be viewed with an absolutist mindset.absolutist thinking leads to stagnation and a self-righteous fundamentalism,so we NEED the free flow of ideas...even BAD ideas..even offensive and racist..because this brings all those feelings/thoughts/ideologies into the market of ideas to be either absorbed or ridiculed and ultimately ostracized for the shit philosophy they represent.

i WANT to know who the racists are.
i want to know who is bigoted or prejudiced.
i want to know who is holding on to stupid ideas,or promoting fascism dressed up as nationalistic pride.

and the only way to shine a light on these horrendous and detrimental ideas is to allow those who hold them openly state who and what they are...so we can criticize/challenge and in some cases..ridicule.

we should be free to say whatever we wish,but we are not free from challenge or criticism.
we can say whatever pops into our pretty little head,but we are not free from consequences.
we are also not free from offense.

i know this is long,and i hope you stayed with me,and if you did,thanks man.i know i tend to ramble.

but we can use the banning of gorillaman as a small microcosm of what we are talking about here.

i felt that we,as a community,could take gorilla to task for his poor choice in verbiage "nigger prince" and i attempted to make the case by using his history,dark humor and bad taste to add context to his poor choice of wording.

bareboards felt it was a matter for the administrators to deal with.i am not saying her choice was wrong.just that we approached the problem from different perspectives.

now gorilla decided to become the human torch and flame out.which threw my approach right out the window.

but the point i am making in that case,is that bad ideas,bad philosophies,bigotry and racism will ALWAYS reveal themselves if we allow that process to ultimately expose bad ideas/shit person.

the free flow of ideas is the proverbial rope that ultimately hangs all shit ideas.

thanks for hanging kids.
love you all!

Nope, you have some kind of misunderstanding. Jesus is at least 1/2 human, born of Mary, so totally guilty like the rest of us.
No, immortals, even demigods, do not somehow warp spacetime so they experience the entirety of infinity in every moment repeatedly. That's just silly mental gymnastics to make sense of the senseless and excuse the impossibility and contradictions of the fable.
Infinite space is not infinite time....and neither exists. More mental gymnastics, but this time for what? The infinite room fallacy just means hell won't overbook, not that someone can endure infinity in a weekend, no matter how magic pops is.
Leave the reviews of hell to those you relegate to it. You have no idea what kind of parties we're into. ;-)

Hey newtboy, you have a misunderstanding there. The original sin was committed in the garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because of that, death entered the world through Adam:

1 Corinthians 15:21-22: For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Jesus didn't have a sin nature because God was His Father. That was, I think, one of the reasons why the virgin birth was necessary. Jesus is the new Adam.

In regards to Jesus bearing our punishment, Jesus fully bore Gods wrath for all sin. The way I understand it is this: Jesus, being God, is an infinite being. Because He is an infinite being, He could bear an infinite punishment in a finite amount of time. It seems counter intuitive to us finite creatures, but there is a good illustration of the concept by a mathematician named David Hilbert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

The idea is that you have a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms which is totally occupied. A guest comes by who wishes to be accommodated so the owner has the guest in room 1 move to room 2, and the guest in room 2 move to room 3, etc, which makes room for the guest. You can do this an infinite amount of times.

As far as partying in hell, that is not what the bible says will happen. The bible describes hell as eternal conscious torment. In juxtaposition to that, this is what the bible says Heaven is like:

Revelation 21:3-5

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying:

“Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man,
and He will live with them.

They will be His people,
and God Himself will be with them as their God.

He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,
and there will be no more death
or mourning or crying or pain,
for the former things have passed away.”

And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Then He said, “Write this down, for these words are faithful and true.”

I think you misunderstand what many meant with their 'fuck you' tantrum vote. It wasn't (just) 'fuck you' to Clinton, the Dems, or centrist republicans, it was a 'fuck you' to the entire system that offers them only disastrous options, if they get input at all. Many made the adult decision to elect someone they hope will destroy the system, but they didn't think far enough ahead to see the pitfalls and traps inherent in starting anew. For many, it wasn't that Trump was a better choice, they elected him because he was the worst possible choice. You can call that a 5year old's tantrum, but you discount the real feeling so many have that the government only works against their interests and they would be better off with anarchy. (I wholeheartedly disagree with that theory, but I can totally comprehend it and understand why many think that).

Btw, we're near twins with the vacation/dog issues. I had already paid for non refundable tickets, rental car, excursions, and lodging in Iceland when my pup broke it's back, or we would have cancelled too. It's been tight, but we stayed out of major debt, and we're poor. Don't give up too easily, where there's a will, there's a way.

You misunderstand, the US army aren't the worst people in the world; ISIS are.

That was my entire point. If your response to "the US army does some bad shit" is "yeah, but ISIS are worse" then you're setting a pretty low standard for your army.

I expect ISIS to be assholes... that's their thing.
And I expect the US army to be many orders of magnitude better than ISIS.

Same way as I expect cops to behave better than criminals.

@newtboy

you said:
Call it what you will. To me, massive illegal immigration with the goal of territorial control is invasion...no matter why they invaded. Invaders always have a reason.
Hence my making the distinction between Arab and Jewish controlled Palestine. Officially the British were still ruling over Palestine, but in most practical ways, Palestine was already divided before the mass immigration started. There was essentially Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine, and the normal conflicts between close neighbours with different religion were already significant before the illegal immigration. Of all the places for Jewish Europeans to flee to, the land already in the possession and control of welcoming Jewish Palestinians hardly stinks of invasion to me.

Sorry, I know I tried to refocus on what they should have done and immediately leapt off the rails myself.

You said:
should have fought the Nazis, not the mostly blameless (for the atrocities) Palestinians
A majority of them that made it into Britain and America did just that. In fact, so many fought against the Nazis that when the civil war in Palestine came to a head and WW2 veteran Jewish soldiers started showing up it's counted part of the Arab narrative as 'western' support and part of the unfair military advantage that made Israel the mighty power and the Arab league army the underdogs.

You said:
The U.S. was open...if they could get here.
No, nothing was open. As pictures of the camps spread, doors started opening but that was very much after the fact. Leading up to and during WW2 immigration numbers were very restricted to jewish people. There simply was absolutely no legal immigration option for thousands and thousands of Jewish Europeans.

You said:
neighbors and allies try to secure their borders that are being crossed by invaders
You misunderstand my statement on the Arab League member's intentions. They had NO intention of defending their neighbouring Arab Palestinian's land. Sure, publicly they declared a joint effort to liberate Palestine. Each member nation though was stating that as code for liberate a portion of Palestine by making it a part of themselves. Israel was able to take the best equipped and trained Jordanian army out of the battle without a single shot fired by agreeing with them to simply abandon the portion of Palestine that Jordan proceeded to make a part of itself. The other Arab states made similar bids militarily, refusing to co-ordinate their assaults because each wanted to declare the ground gained their own. As they each rushed their offensives and attacked individually Israel had the time to plant 100% of their forces in the path of each of them.

You asked:
Should I think you call Turkey an invader of Daesh, and you a supporter of Daesh?
In the sense that you are asking, it's a near yes. The original Syrian resistance is a group I really do support, and the Kurdish fighters have largely been on their same side and I support their efforts there as well. Daesh was much more interested in killing the 'legitimate' resistance than Assad and Putin's forces. Similarly, the Russians have made it a firm practice to exclusively attack the 'legitimate' resistance and doing their best to largely not bother attacking Daesh unless forced to. The main reason being that once Daesh is all that's left, the scorched earth fix becomes all the more easily justified, and the actual rebels pose a much more real and legitimate alternative to Assad's government than Daesh.