>> ^Phreezdryd:

The perspective of a non-runner to an audience of mostly non-runners, in a society where the majority seems perfectly happy not running. It's been a while since running long distance was a necessity, depending on geography and available technology.


True...we could argue whether or not it's been a positive thing or a negative thing. I fall in the middle...as in it's great we have all this technology but it would be even better if we also ran a bunch.

This is sort of an argument from ignorance here. He doesn't understand running...he doesn't understand running with people. He also doesn't understand that if they weren't running for charity they would just be running, because that's what we do we're a running people.

Humans are meant to run for long long distances, it's in our genetics and our history. So while I love David Mitchell, it's just the sort of thing that if he put a little more thought into this video or maybe asked someone, it would've made a lot more sense.

It's my opinion that this is his best one to date. He goes on a bit of a tangent, but somehow stays on topic at the same time...it's as if he tangents, but then the tangent intersects with a frontage road, of sorts, and goes alongside the motorway (read in David Mitchell voice)

I'm quite disappointed there wasn't a "David Mitchel is a cock" immediately after he said it.

It's a BBC promo that is supposed to make you want to watch the rest of the episode - hence the BBC2 branding at the end of it.

>> ^messenger:

So what's the answer? What a lame place to cut off a QI clip.

So is David Mitchel a cock then?

Your video, QI - David Mitchell attempts to explain the origin of "WWI", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

BONUS: Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power? Ha.


Second time of saying this to you - who has ever claimed to know the exact right temperature the earth is "meant" to be? It doesn't even make sense as a statement. "Meant" to be how, in what way? You must be quoting something a knowlessman has said.

Second time of saying this to you as well - you have the wrong target. The politicians are manipulating "climate change" into a money-spinner. But that doesn't mean that climate change is wrong, it means the politicians are wrong.

They and the oil barons are manipulating you and you owe it to yourself to go out and independantly educate yourself. The data is there qm, and it is abundantly clear that there is an anomalous spike in temperature which presents itself around mid 1900s. The only thing left to discuss is why it is happening, and david mitchell is suggesting that no rational human being would simply do nothing when there is even the vaguest chance that we are contributing to the anomaly.

Hate the politicians, not the science they use and abuse to manipulate you with. I hope you listen this time, but i know you won't.

You are certainly correct. Time magazine used the term in June 1939, even Wikipedia tells us that much. But we also know from this clip that it's not 1939.

Now, the German term "Erster Weltkrieg" was used as early as 1928 by Stefan George in his work "Das neue Reich", more specifically his poem "Einem jungen Führer im Ersten Weltkrieg".

Is it the earliest mention of the term? No idea. And that's still just the German version, who knows at what point in time the English decided to steal it.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
I think the focus is on the "First" in "First World War," but nice resources. Yay I can still read Sütterlin or whatever that font was called.

Dear Obama, please use David Mitchell's rants as speech material (okay, at least ^this one).

>> ^radx:

http://www.archive.org/stream/derweltkriegdeu00niemgoog
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2026/2026-h/2026-h.htm
Or is my memory playing tricks on me again?


I think the focus is on the "First" in "First World War," but nice resources. Yay I can still read Sütterlin or whatever that font was called.

1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
---Not the precise temperature--the average temperature.

2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.
---Don't need to set the temperature--just try to lessen the rate of the obvious temperature rise.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

BONUS: Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power? Ha.

TL;DR

Fox News story about 1 scientist disagreeing with the entire community over one sentence.

Goes on to quote Fox News poll (appeal to the masses) that not surprisingly shows that dumb non-scientists think that the fact that scientists don't all agree about something is some kind of proof of something.

I N C O N T R O V E R T I B L E

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

Oh, I think he understood damned well. He just doesn't have a problem if one of the innocent darkies gets executed on his watch. I'm actually not against the death penalty in theory. Even the way he (quite panderingly so) states it is fairly simple: I don't have a problem with a bat-shit crazy serial killer rapist being put to death.

The problem is that the actual enforcement of the death penalty is just racist. White criminals and black criminals don't get the same sentences for the same crimes.


Of course, there is the issue of innocent people being put to death too and I definitely have a problem with a death-penalty case which is nebulous. Say something there they don't have direct evidence and the links to the criminal are circumstantial.

That said, I would have no problem with someone like Jeffrey Dahmer being put to death. Caught red-handed and guilty of unspeakable horror and cruelty... fry him up.

Edit: just one source for the whole racist aspects of the way that the death penalty is handled http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides

>> ^Yogi:

Education is all I can think of when I see stuff like this. People who cheer things like that simply aren't educated.
EDIT: Also you have to be concerned with the education of Parry because he clearly didn't understand the question. The question was essentially do you lose any sleep over possibly executing innocent people? To which he replied that if you commit a heinous crime you should be put to death. I understand in this country with our sound-bite media that a candidate cannot be heard to utter something that could be perceived to go against their supporters wishes. However I really wish in a public debate we had instead of Brian Williams a man who knows exactly what's going on and allows it we had someone like David Mitchell because there is no way he would let that go. He would've kept pressing him until he made him look like the utter retard he is.