>> ^bareboards2:

As if. Insurance rates for male drivers under age 25 dispute that notion.

Incorrect. While one may be able to argue that attention seeking behavior contributes to this phenomenon, it would be incorrect to state it is the cause. If you would like to state that it is the sole cause of increased insurance prices, you would be required to cite your data.

In reality, the need for increased aggressive and competitive tendencies in males, particularly in those in a prime stage chronologically, is a result of the need to assure that the most physically ideal male is granted reproductive precedence in a biological capacity. This is the primary reasoning behind said insurance rates.

>> ^bareboards2:

Good lord, as women we can't get away from what guys want. It should ONLY be what the women want to do.

I live in a town where "dressing up" everyday is frowned upon.


Here in-lies the flaw in attempting to promote the concept of personal choice by actively supporting the opposite of the current status quo in a given situation, whatever that may be.

If achieving an alternative to a given issue is ones primary goal, clearly stating so is conducive to clear communication, debate, and the exchange of ideas.

If promoting the concept of personal choice in a given issue is ones primary goal, clearly stating so is conducive to clear communication, debate, and the exchange of ideas.

If maintaining the current status quo in a given issue is ones primary goal, clearly stating so is conducive to clear communication, debate, and the exchange of ideas.

One can not have multiple primary goals, and to combine them creates an argument that is not only contradictory, but is less than the sum of it's parts.

>> ^Kofi:

What does he mean by "back to the private sector"? I thought he was against picking winners and losers.


In my experiences as an outside party, I've noticed Romney tends to be against lot of things that he's in favor of.

>> ^TangledThorns:

Maher really should stop smoking so much weed at the Playboy mansion and get some fresh air instead of pushing false equivalencies. A vote Obama is a vote for the same policies that are tearing down Europe like Greece and Spain. See what I did there?


Made an unsubstantiated claim? Equated the economic situation of a world superpower to countries with a fraction of the GDP? Blamed downturns in the global economy on an opposing political ideology, as opposed to an economic one? Pretended that America's economic degradation was something that began with, and would end with, your current administration?
Indeed, I saw these things quite clearly.

>> ^brycewi19:

>> ^vaire2ube:
thats still not nice to the fish freakin complex set up

Don't worry. He'll just forget about it in two minutes.


I was going to dismiss this, then I noticed that they seem to have went through a few fish.

Ran a red light? Blame the Doppler Effect.

>> ^hpqp:

Interesting, but phenomenally anti-democratic. Then again, the US political system is phenomenally anti-democratic already... was that the point being made?


The way I saw it, he was pointing out that the U.S. seems to feel the need to run other countries as it is, so wouldn't it only be fair to allow them to elect "their own" government? I think much of his point may have been muddled by his tongue-in-cheek joke suggesting that instead of the entirety of the globe voting, everyone but America votes being crammed in to too short a time frame.

Though there might have been some seriousness, or at least an element of poetic justice, to the idea in that it would give the American people an idea of what it is like when a government that you had no part in bringing into power starts making drastic decisions that affect both you and your country.

But again, that's just what I saw.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Lilith was never in scripture and was written about over 1000 years after genesis. It was written as Jewish folklore, and developed mostly in the middle ages. Today it is particularly embraced by pagans, gnostics and radical femenists. It's yet another lie, out of millions, that tries to derail the Creation story and that people buy into without doing any research. There is no lilith conspiracy..she never existed.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
@0:34 "Ever since the earth's first woman..."
bzzt! Eve was the earth's second woman.



The very concept of Pagans and Agnostics including a story, altered or otherwise, from a book collaboratively written by groups of Judo-Christians in their religious beliefs is truly laughable. That's before even considering the fact that both spiritual ideologies existed prior to Abrahamic religion. Furthermore, your "Lilith was never in scripture and was written about over 1000 years after genesis." statement is completely invalid. A figure pulled from your metaphorical nether-regions, if you will. Your later complaint of "people buy into without doing any research" truly cements your spot on my "Wall of Hypocritical Nonsense."

I could go into further detail about your closing comment "It's yet another lie, out of millions, that tries to derail the Creation story. There is no lilith conspiracy..she never existed" in regards to your views about the integrity of a tale claiming all of humanity is descendent from two humans who sprung up, fully formed, out of the earth. Instead, however, I think I'll let your previous misinformation speak for itself.

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.


Having read through Metamorphoses, I can honestly say I found far less basic ethical transgressions present than in the Christian Bible. Modern day societal value inconsistencies were about equal between the two books, assuming one accounts for the differences in length.

Now don't get me wrong here, I don't consider myself a literary historian, but when spending a day sick in bed one will find Wikipedia taking them in strange directions.

Bah! My apologies for this unintentional message to your profile page. Still working out exactly how this sites system functions.
Though, seeing as how I'm here anyway and don't seem to see an option to delete the message in its entirety, allow me to say that knowledge regarding the origin of your profile avatar immediately marked you as one who's comments would likely be worth considering.

>> ^crillep:

Why is it that atheists preach more than anyone?
Spirituality is personal, so if you need to push your belief or nonbelief onto others than you are probably seeking confirmation for your own thoughts.


The moment one decides to restrict them self to and organized religion, to be told by someone else what is right, wrong, and why, one gives up the right to claim their is anything personal about their views on spirituality. Ironically, the reasoning behind ones decision to deny themselves this freedom of thought is usually exactly what you just cited; confirmation from others.

>> ^maximillian:

His opinion is just that, an opinion. He has no authority to back his opinion up. It may sound logical, and sure some people may believe what he is saying. However, you have to understand that he is talking from his own interpretation of what he thinks God is and what he thinks God's plan is.


You, good sir, just summed up every religion ever.

You've got to love the logic behind homosexuality leading to an increased rate of abortions.
Oh, wait. Silly me, I almost forgot that these types skipped out of their biology classes on religious grounds.

At 2:12, for one faint, flickering moment, the existential horror of existence is briefly glimpsed by mortal eyes.