Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I had a wisdom tooth pulled in Chiang Mai. It cost about $20.

Admittedly, they did attach a string to my tooth and then an elephant - and told it to start running.

No, actually - really high tech, competent dentistry over there.

I've lived in Thailand for almost 6 years now, and I was a poor college student/graduate prior to that. So, I hadn't had any dental treatment whatsoever for about 10 years. At that time in the US in my small hometown, I figured that a cleaning with nothing else done would cost $100. Plus the dentists wanted to do x-rays every year that would be another $50-$100. So, basically $150-200 yearly assuming that I didn't get anything other than a simple cleaning.

So far I've been lucky to have teeth that stay in pretty good condition. I hadn't had any cavities in adult teeth, but 10 years without a trip to the dentist was pushing it. So, I figured it was time to bite the bullet and visit a dentist here in (upcountry) Thailand. I walked in and they said that I had 3 cavities and 2 small weak spots that could turn into cavities.

They asked me if I would like old-style metal colored fillings or new tooth-colored stuff (I didn't even know that existed). I opted for the old style since it was slightly cheaper, but the doc was upset about the prospect of putting the first visible fillings in my otherwise pristine teeth so she said she would give me the tooth-colored ones for the same price as the other type.

In and out, far less pain and discomfort than I remember being standard at my dental visits in the US (to be fair I had a lot of cavities and problems with my baby teeth when I was a kid, plus braces and lots of orthodontic work). Total cost -- about $40 USD. For yearly cleanings, I think the local clinic here will charge about $15 USD. So, I'm well pleased with the results.

The first ball, and my jaw hit the floor.

Then he picked up the second ball, and my jaw hit the floor and I chipped a tooth.

Then he picked up the third ball amd mff blrgl mm grb blm

And how is that an authoritative source? It's from a stupid blog...an obviously very biased blog.

none of which even touches my argument about diversity.

>> ^silvercord:

The average age (mean) of the speakers at the DNC was 58.66 while at the RNC it was 49.92.
From modicum of insanity:
Of the speakers in the DNC, there were 9 current governors and 5 former governors. 22 members of the House of Representatives, 2 candidates for the House, and 1 former House member spoke. 5 current senators and 2 former senators also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 57.44. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 62.64. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 67.2.
Of the speakers at the RNC, there were 10 current governors and 5 former governors. 9 current members of the House of Representatives, 1 candidate for House, and 2 former House members spoke. 7 current senators, 4 former senators, and 1 candidate also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 50.3. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 50.67. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 52.83.
I wouldn't count 'em out just yet when it looks like the DNC is the party that's getting a little long in the tooth.

>> ^VoodooV:
Comparing the two national conventions alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Republican party as we currently know it is in its last years.
RNC: by and large, mostly old white people
DNC: Actual cross-section of America and vastly more diverse.

"Of the speakers in the DNC ... 22 members of the House of Representatives" well they just blew the curve.

As for the RNC convention, I think what we saw was either a conscious effort to "go younger" and entice younger voters, or a symptom of the greater problem with modern conservatism: namely that serious, mature conservatives don't want anything to do with these lunatics.>> ^silvercord:

The average age (mean) of the speakers at the DNC was 58.66 while at the RNC it was 49.92.
From modicum of insanity:
Of the speakers in the DNC, there were 9 current governors and 5 former governors. 22 members of the House of Representatives, 2 candidates for the House, and 1 former House member spoke. 5 current senators and 2 former senators also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 57.44. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 62.64. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 67.2.
Of the speakers at the RNC, there were 10 current governors and 5 former governors. 9 current members of the House of Representatives, 1 candidate for House, and 2 former House members spoke. 7 current senators, 4 former senators, and 1 candidate also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 50.3. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 50.67. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 52.83.
I wouldn't count 'em out just yet when it looks like the DNC is the party that's getting a little long in the tooth.

>> ^VoodooV:
Comparing the two national conventions alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Republican party as we currently know it is in its last years.
RNC: by and large, mostly old white people
DNC: Actual cross-section of America and vastly more diverse.

The average age (mean) of the speakers at the DNC was 58.66 while at the RNC it was 49.92.

From modicum of insanity:

Of the speakers in the DNC, there were 9 current governors and 5 former governors. 22 members of the House of Representatives, 2 candidates for the House, and 1 former House member spoke. 5 current senators and 2 former senators also spoke.

Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 57.44. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 62.64. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 67.2.

Of the speakers at the RNC, there were 10 current governors and 5 former governors. 9 current members of the House of Representatives, 1 candidate for House, and 2 former House members spoke. 7 current senators, 4 former senators, and 1 candidate also spoke.

Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 50.3. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 50.67. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 52.83.

I wouldn't count 'em out just yet when it looks like the DNC is the party that's getting a little long in the tooth.


>> ^VoodooV:

Comparing the two national conventions alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Republican party as we currently know it is in its last years.
RNC: by and large, mostly old white people
DNC: Actual cross-section of America and vastly more diverse.

>> ^lantern53:

White men are the most maligned people on the planet. We make laws here protecting women from domestic abuse, providing health care and free breakfasts for their kids, etc. yet because this man is not a woman, he is some kind of shit to be abused.
By your logic, since he is a man, he must be thinking that woman are property to be utilized in any way with no regard for their well-being.
Your logic is porked.


Sorry, but that's just fucking sad.

This particular dipshit (I didn't see any other white men being interviewed) didn't pass the protections you mentioned all by himself (if he had anything to do with them at all). For all you know, he fought tooth and nail against them. By your "logic" this idiot shouldn't be criticised because those protections exist at all.

What in this video made you believe he has ANY regard for the well-being of women, outside of allowing an abortion to save her life? Or are you just running to his defense because he has an "R" next to his name?

About 30% of the world population is white. Do you think only white men had anything to do with laws that protect women? By your logic, those white men were ALSO solely responsible for the housing market collapse, 3 unneccesary wars, the world-wide recession, and all the financial scandals that seem to be exposed on a daily basis. They could use a little maligning. Cherry-picking history and regurgitating logical fallacies seem to be all you Repugs have in your arsenal nowadays. It's pitiful.

The whole point of the video is that this crusader against abortion hasn't even considered the view of those who would be most affected by anti-abortion laws. Why do you think that is? Money from anti-abortion donors? Religious nuttery? Towing the party line? Incapable of empathy (a sociopath)? That he is a man who wants to pass laws that only affect women makes it even more disgraceful.

We can always count on the gop-bots to bring the stoopid.

>> ^qfan:

Side note: Being well respected doesn't mean his views are truth.

Agreed. On the other hand, the unassailable mountains of evidence for evolution means his views (at least on evolution) are truth. Or at least as much as it's possible to have any scientific "truth".


>> ^qfan:

Though yes, perfectly fine to have an opinion. I'm not disputing that.
What's in dispute is that he's telling parents not to share their beliefs with their own children. So we're not only telling creationists they can't share their views publicly in school, we also tell them that they can't share their views in private with their own children. It's extraordinarily dangerous thinking in the free world. These are private people who wish to raise their children with their own values. Bill is publicly preaching to parents (unlike those parents who are privately teaching their children) not to share what they believe in, all the while saying "When you're in love you want to tell the world about it." The man is amazingly hypocritical and sadly without an ounce of realisation about it.

He's not saying parents can't tell their children about creationism, he's saying they shouldn't. You can dance around the issue all you want, and believe in creationism, the tooth fairy or santa claus, but there comes a time when you have to grow up and accept reality. Right now, there's no debate about evolution, simply because there is no valid competing scientific theory that even comes close to matching the evidence. That I have to even spell this out is pretty sad.

>> ^qfan:

He says "We need scientifically literate people...". The thousands of scientists that believe in creation are also literate in science, even in the evolutionary aspects, except they choose not to believe in evolutionary theory. Science is a method. Nothing more, nothing less. Creationists aren't ignoring science at all, they are ignoring evolutionary theory.

There might be "thousands of scientists that believe in creation", but they represent a tiny percentage of the overall scientific community and almost none of them work in relevant fields. You wouldn't ask a plumber about aeronautical engineering, so don't ask a physicist about biology.

And if you ignore evolutionary theory, you are ignoring the science of biology. You are cherry-picking which evidence you accept because it doesn't fit your world view.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says "We need engineers, people that build stuff, solve problems...". The example of Wernher Von Braun puts this point to rest.

I have already conceded that you do not need to understand evolutionary biology to build rockets.

>> ^qfan:

You're confusing a lot of things here. First you say he ignored an area (evolution) that conflicted with his belief "because it didn't affect his work", then go on to say "You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution".

If you're going to quote me, at least do me the courtesy of doing it fully and in context. What I said was:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution though, given it's the backbone of a lot of medical research.


I meant that Von Braun benefited from the study of evolution in the same way that every other human in the developed world did, through better medicines. It didn't really affect his work, but it did affect his life.


>> ^qfan:

Von Braun, "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design,” “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/656/1

So what? He was wrong about evolution. Big deal. Newton was one of the greatest minds of all time and he got time wrong. Science marches on, and I'm confident that Von Braun if he had the time and inclination to really study it, would eventually have accepted the facts of evolution. And if he still chose to ignore the evidence because it didn't fit his world-view, well, that's sad, but it changes nothing about the truth of evolution.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says that denial of evolution is unique to the US (which is already a very questionable statement in itself), then goes on to say that the US is the most technologically advanced nation (with a grudging acceptance that Japan might be slightly ahead). Again, another questionable statement and slightly elitist I might add So if denial of evolution is holding the US back, why is it the most technologically advanced? You could word it another way... denial of evolution and technological advancement do not correlate with one another.


It's not unique to the U.S., but it's more prevalent than any other developed nation. What he's saying is that the U.S. should know better.

Denial of evolution in and of itself is bad, but it's symptomatic of the larger issues of anti-intellectualism and non-rational thought. The people who made the U.S. the most technologically advanced nation are not the same people that believe in a talking snake.

Besides, he's talking about potential. Maybe somewhere in the bible belt the next Alexander Fleming is having their future taken away from them because they are being lied to (intentionally or not) by their parents and/or preachers.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

It also looks like he yanked a bit hard on his neck and skull as the brick yanked the tooth. Ouch!

Nobody has brought up doping yet. I have absolutely no idea how vast it's influence is or how little it may be sought after due to the literal pride of the athletes themselves may be influencing these decisions among their own community (and I do think that the athletes and how they handle those that have done it, might do it, and haven't yet but are just hearing about the possibilities of doping; how they talk and act to stop it when they can amongst themselves and their community is what fights it the best).

I know some of the athletes have been suspended up to four years, but are still allowed to play again. I don't know if it matters what they were doing (as anabolic steroids and its effects will be lifelong if you keep up your routine) as some doping schemes are quick fixes like someone trying to use adrenaline. I mean do they check for that type of thing, a neurotransmitter carrier drug stuck in something like a false tooth; you bite down and in 5-10 seconds your adrenaline shoots forward for 30 seconds... I guess I should look and see how far they've taken this process; I know they are very vigilant, as much as possible. But, I really don't know were the holes are and how big they possibly are.

Training has most defiantly given athletes a superb edge. Not only do they run and work out, but they WATCH themselves run and can see what they are doing run. They just compare it to the best and modify themselves in that fashion gaining seconds, upon seconds. Eventually they learn to add a new twist and soon people are watching HIM or HER for inspiration to win a medal.

I know many athletes get their medals the old-fashioned hard way, proudly and resolute, for their country. It just makes me wonder how far doping has truly influenced the athletes and what areas of their training and structure actually test them correctly with the possibility that there may always be an area, with many athletes all doping (they are tested at the Pre-Olympic qualifiers, The Olympics, but then a shady organization "passes" them all at their home training camp). I hope that it never reaches that scale, but I always have problems when there are some Olympic coaches that have had about six athletes under them, three of them have been caught doping and three are OK--kind of disconcerting...

-edit

I forgot one point I was going to make. You can obviously see from the info-graphic that even training and in absolutely NO WAY can doping account for the 8 year old to the rest of the teenage field of sprinters. It shows to me that perhaps a very long change in diet stopping any malnutrition, FAR better medical care (also limiting disease to a LARGE extent) has lead to a BETTER populace, even genetically which just due to this little clip you could make the case, to some degree. Then you have some of the intangibles like better shoes, better surfaces to run on, and other like changes in our lives that were mentioned and the ones you can think about that weren't. Then you find the cream of the crop athletes, give them superb training, and I truly do think you can see why we have increased those three seconds.

I just merely hope doping isn't behind many victories. I actually wouldn't care if it was someone genetically modified--not grotesquely (to go out of your way to destroy the human form is up to you, but as scientists I don't think we should aim for that--we should aim within that, I also have a feeling that someone grotesque may not be exactly happily received at The Olympics...), just suited to run faster with muscles that are far more dense than usual. As long as genetic changes like this eventually come to almost all of us, changes that enrich and make our lives better (not The Hulk™).

Nature is red in tooth and claw.

Dumb invention?
Actually, a great way to get around the 'hands-free' law while driving.

I have a blue-tooth, hands-free device, but it takes more effort to use while driving than just using the phone (the regular way) and takes may attention away from driving more so than just that phone by itself..

I plug my phone into the audio jack of my car - works great.

Don't lump Agnostics in with the Atheist I find it a bit insulting. I'm Agnostic, I believe their is a god just that no human can possibly comprehend his existence and therefore no religion could possibly be even close to right because every single holy book was written by man and therefore fatally flawed. I don't think god is either malevolent or benevolent I think he just is. If I had to hazard a guess as to the identity of god I think the universe as a whole itself IS god. That explains just about everything from evolution to the existence of good and evil. Light, dark, intelligence, and the possibility of life outside of our own planet.

That said Pat Robinson is the biggest scam artist of all time, and the fact that he's even involved in this scheme makes me pause. Rule of thumb anyone trying to make money off their religion is probably not a trustworthy person.

>> ^VoodooV:

Funny that's what the agnostics and atheists argue when it comes to belief in a god. Just because you can't think of a better reason, doesn't mean god did it.
The so called morality of the Christian god has been demonstrated time and time again to be in conflict to what we know of as a free and just democratic society where all people are equal...not just the "chosen" ones who believe.
The instant we decided that slavery was wrong, we became better than the Christian god
The instant we decided that stonings were not an appropriate method of punishment, we became better than the Christian god.

>> ^Morganth:
Just because you can't think of a good reason why God would allow evil and suffering to continue, therefore there can't be one? Why would that be? That's some very poor logic. >> ^A10anis:
Epicurus had it correct in 300BCE;
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Don't let these brainwashed self deluders, with their childish concepts, take us back to an age when every aspect of life was controlled by their cult. They are free to be slaves to their gods in private, but free, logical, 21st century, intelligent thinkers, should fight tooth and nail to keep it out of Politics and, especially, away from our kids and schools.

>> ^Morganth:

Just because you can't think of a good reason why God would allow evil and suffering to continue, therefore there can't be one? Why would that be? That's some very poor logic. >> ^A10anis:
Epicurus had it correct in 300BCE;
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Don't let these brainwashed self deluders, with their childish concepts, take us back to an age when every aspect of life was controlled by their cult. They are free to be slaves to their gods in private, but free, logical, 21st century, intelligent thinkers, should fight tooth and nail to keep it out of Politics and, especially, away from our kids and schools.


Wow, that just went way over your head, didn't it. "God-is-mysterious-but-he-is-god-so-he-must-have-a-good-reason" is your idea of good logic? Anyway, Epicurus isn't saying god doesn't have a reason. Only that it must be malevolent IF he is "able, but not willing".