There really needs to be a *demote feature for these situations.

>> ^Issykitty:

What the hey... I have 2 pts to burn! Doublepromoteeee

Considering the guy's entire face is shifted to his right, is it any wonder he's a "conservative republican" (to use his own words)?

Seriously, his face asymmetry is distracting as hell. I stopped paying attention to the video because I kept wondering if Popeye had hit him with a right hook before he sat in front of the camera.

Hahaha the other bot beeps "oh shit" when Calculon walks in. Never noticed that before.

May I suggest http://videosift.com/video/Tine-Thing-Helseth-Hummel-Trumpet-Concerto-in-Eb-3rd-mvt instead then?

>> ^nock:

Nice song I guess. She may be a great trumpeter, but this song doesn't demonstrate anything beyond good looks and a full sound. The range of this song was confined to an octave... Beginners could play this.

*promote

Perhaps it's because he has a mild case of Dyspraxia?

>> ^Trancecoach:

Too bad this wealthy kid appears to be riddled with anxiety.
>> ^eric3579:
Radcliffe came through with some serious knowledge. Well done Harry!

Shock me like an electric eel

Except QualiaSoup's argument doesn't rest on ad hominem attacks. You're pointing to the single use of a word, "pseudoscientific," which in context (about 4:23) was used as "Some anti-evolutionists repeat an argument put forward by Michael Behe - an advocate of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement..." (and again, no mention of the word fraud, that was your own addition). That is simply not an ad hominem fallacy, since he is not attacking Behe's character. Perhaps it's just you who interprets it as such? If we're going to debate semantics here, the word "pseudoscience" has a formal definition (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pseudoscience) that, while pejorative, is still not an ad hominem attack against Behe. QualiaSoup used it as an adjective to describe intelligent design, suggesting that it does not conform to the principles of the scientific method. Which is a true statement. It doesn't. QualiaSoup is not questioning Behe's wealth or IQ or sexuality or what Behe's mother did last night or any other personal quality completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Ad hominem = "to the man" - Behe the man is not under attack. Behe's beliefs/opinions are.

Behe's scientific knowledge and work can absolutely be isolated from his pseudoscientific beliefs/advocacy. Isaac Newton sought ways to perform alchemy, does that mean his contributions to fundamental physics are invalid or that it's an ad hominem attack against him personally if I were to say that alchemy is pseudoscience?

Also, would it help put your mind at ease that QualiaSoup isn't blowing smoke out of his ass if a noted and widely published evolutionary scientist like Richard Dawkins made the exact same argument years ago?

>> ^bmacs27:

There was a reason I put pseudoscientific in quotes, and left fraud out of quotes. Calling him pseudoscientific implies he is a fraud, as he claims to be a scientist. It is ad hominem. An appeal to accomplishment is a valid response to an argument that rests on ad hominem attacks.
Further, as far as logical fallacies go, particularly within science, an appeal to expertise hardly seems inappropriate. In fact happens all the time. That's why courts employ expert witnesses, and we accept the recommendations of grants reviewed by peers not laymen. While there is of course always room for arguments from evidence, in the absence of such we generally defer to the intuitions of experts.
There are plenty of arguments that suggest the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction could have evolved. Why not make them?

Where in the video does he call Behe a "fraud"? I was listening for it and it never came. Calling Behe "pseudoscientific" is not an ad hominem attack.

Furthermore, the suggestion that QualiaSoup's arguments and logic are insufficient because you don't see journal publications with his name attached to them is a red herring fallacy of its own - Appeal to Accomplishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_accomplishment).

>> ^bmacs27:
Instead, by writing him off as a "pseudoscientific" fraud, or similar ad hominem attacks, they are guilty of equivalent logical fallacies, and should be given equivalent respect. The guy is actually a scientist, with publications in journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Journal of Molecular Biology, and the Journal of Biophysiology, on topics like DNA and protein structure. Frankly, unless there is a CV somewhere I can see for these qualia-soup people, Behe has them trumped on credentials, so they might avoid the ad hominem, and critique the substance of the actual arguments put forth.

Well, at least he had the courtesy and foresight to put on his hazard lights.

Took your advice. A+++++++ commenter; would do business with again.

>> ^nach0s:

Set that to Mad World by Gary Jules.

That's some pretty epic corpsing.

Thanks for the help with the Fantasia 2000 embed!

Dude who let the cow in? I'm gonna have to have a talk with the bouncer. This place is totally going to hell, goddamn poseurs.

Caitlin is a smart and intuitive cookie.

Likely train of thought:

1. There are 2 common contractions that are 3 letters long with 2 letters after the apostrophe: I'll and I've.

2. I'm going to pick L on the hunch that the first word is "I'll" for an easy 2 letters and potentially more in the rest of the puzzle.

3. Only 1 L showed up, implying the first word is I've.

4. The single letter (third word) is "a" since "I've _ _ _ I" will never[citation needed] make sense. The second word must be a verb of some kind since the first is a contraction of "I have," and "I have the a..." doesn't fit, nor does "I have" plus any noun (like "I have cat a...") will also not make sense. So word #2 must be a 3-letter verb of some kind.

5. "I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts" doesn't fit. Haha.