Oh liberals and their anti-gmo stance, just about as irrational as any conservative anti-science position, bedfellow to climate change denialism.

As I recall, stoning is the prescribed method for execution listed in the bible when a person violates a religious law where the punishment is death, unless another method is specifically prescribed for the particular crime.
This should include anyone that eats shellfish, they violate the same kind of law as homosexuals, but I never hear the Christian right railing against seafood restaurants. Can you (or anyone else) explain why that disparity is proper, or is it simply that religion is mostly used to excuse blind irrational hatred rather than it being a legitimate reason for it?

Molyneux tries to take down Gandhi, like he tried to take down Mandela a few days after he died. Here, he gets into some interesting topics (and others not so interesting), like this premise that Gandhi supposedly didn't base his ethics on logical reasoning. This appears to have some truth to it since much of Gandhi's thinking was of a different kind than what most had seen at the time.

In this article, however, Molyneux is himself found to be falling short of his rationalist aspirations. The author, David Gordon, knows (as did Gandhi) the difficulty -- indeed the impossibility -- of coming up with a 100% rationalist basis for morality/ethics.

If nothing else, the axioms upon which the ethics are based will necessarily be irrational -- not anti-reason -- but outside of reason.

When fans complained about the Bioshock Infinite box art Irrational decided to post some alternates to be voted on. This one won http://irrationalgames.com/insider/poll-winner-announced/

I feel like there is easily the capacity to make great artwork, but in this case they opted not to make it the default cover art because they were afraid Joe public wouldn't "get it" or something. It's typical risk aversion. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the budgets for these movie posters were actually greater than it has been in the past. I'd wager that some great movie posters are produced that we never get to see.

@mintbbb
hey hey stranger!
i dont know why you second guess yourself in regards to how you are perceived based on peoples subjective and highly irrational understandings.

humans...a curious lot.

you are a total sweetie.you are just super sensitive and some people never really understood that about you.
your husband is an idealist.
thats not a bad thing,in fact that can be a very good thing.

we NEED people to be dreamers and your husband is a dreamer and sometimes that can be frustrating if you are in an argument with him (which i have been).

i didnt always agree with him but i always liked him.

some here on the sift have questioned my friendship with @chingalera.
they didnt understand.
i seemed to be so much more approachable and less acidic in my commentary.
so how could i align myself with such a trollish sifter?

the answer is simply because i get him.
we BOTH are idealists.
just like your husband.
the difference lies in that both ching and i battle,on a daily basis,the rising tide of cynicism.

a cynicism that was born out of being beaten,imprisoned,lied to,betrayed and many times by the very people and/or institutions that we once were idealistic about.

disillusion is a real motherfucker.

yet we still retain that idealism.
we both are humanists.
we care about people.

so everything we do or say is with that at its heart.
so when ching is berating somebody,they may perceive that as an attack.
and it is but it is NOT an attack on them,personally,but rather an attack on their media-induced mythology.
or maybe a person is suffering a severe case of myopia and needs to be shaken out of their apathetic dystopia.

but its always,and i mean ALWAYS to get someone to look at a situation with a different perspective or challenge a belief.
to get people to actually think.
to not just give in to authority but to realize ALL authority is illegitimate until proven otherwise.

i tend to use less shocking and confrontational vernacular than ching does.so that may explain peoples confusion why i consider him a friend.

but if you understood his intent,the words he uses would have less of an emotional impact.

note* by my commentary i am not excusing,condoning nor dismissing chings very real outbursts that actually did hurt some feelings.
but i also know that when people get their feelings hurt they sometimes lash out (and i also suspect that those outbursts were in conjunction with copious amounts of booze).

passionate people are just as sensitive as the next and can/will retaliate in kind when hurt.i know i have.

which brings me to the actual point at hand (sorry..i tend to rant).

why would we remove/negate anything from the archives?
the organic growth and procession of a community should be held intact.
warts and all.
to remove,edit or scrub clean serves nothing,except to maybe repeat past indiscretions.

we never use the ignore button.
nor the sarcasm or jokingly.
so why would we erase the communities past dealings?
be they enlightening or incredibly droll?
its who we were and gives us all a marker where we may be going.

just a thought.

Do you just not bother going to the bathroom in these things, or do you carry a key on you? If the latter, do we assume that the rapist isn't going to say "take them off or <x>?" I don't want to shit on the idea or anything, but it strikes me that this may provide some people with a false sense of protection almost, that says "go on.. take a risk; you've always got your rape pants on if this goes badly." Have that extra 5 drinks and get wasted, walk down that dark street alone, accept the free drink off the creepy guy you're getting a weird vibe off. Not everyone is that stupid to see it that way, but some people are.

There have been links posted that provide some form of evidence that resisting tends to reduce the harm done to the victim, but the form of resistance really needs to be accounted for. If 7 times out of 10 screaming and fighting scares a rapist off and 3 times out of 10 it doesn't, then the statistics can show that screaming and fighting works well for the victim. But i was led to believe that rape is about power, and if our 3 out of 10 rapists are presented with the inability to feel empowered in the way they want, did we just convert the statistic to 2 out of 10 victims getting murdered or mutilated instead? In other words, if screaming/fighting doesn't work then you're dealing with someone who isn't easily put off, so aren't at least some of them going to find another outlet for their desire for power over the person? And is frustrating them (effectively making them feel powerless) really a good idea given the situation?

Finally, i hate the term "rape culture." It's an utterly vacant bullshit term bandied about by misandrists and makes people irrationally scared of something that doesn't exist. The culture of rape? Some sick, mentally deranged bastard commits a heinous act and we label it as though it has been educated upon them through society; almost as though it isn't their fault, it's modern day society that encourages rape? What an absolute load of toss - everyone knows it's wrong that has a grasp of the concepts of right and wrong. Rapists are sick in the head, not coerced into it by peer pressure. "Rape culture" indeed. Some extremist lunatics shaming a victim does not a culture make.

@alcom No hard feelings. I'm starting to get used to this. Please let me try to explain one more time, because I feel like I have an important point:

Videos like this are great for the people who are already in agreement, but it's my belief that they're intended to educate and bring positive change.
My belief is that we need to get people who disagree entirely with the subject and message to absorb the information if we actually want to make that change.
We're communicating with people who, for all intents and purposes from our point of view, are completely irrational. 'They' believe the same about people with our perspective. If you're going to approach them for a dialogue, it only takes ONE mistake, misquote, or sense of being manipulated to lose them, and then you're back to square one.

So the reason I criticize this video is because I could see someone who was ignorant of this information easily turning it off as soon as it got to the dramatic music and the matter-of-fact narrative presentation, or the misalignment with their Empirical analogies.
I'm sure you've seen enough mainstream media today to know that as soon as something smells fishy to one party or another, they hang onto that, no matter how trivial whatever that thing is, and it's the only excuse they need to stick fingers in ears and "La la la I can't hear you! You're wrong!"

I feel like I'm turning into exactly that kind of manipulative, psychoanalyzing communicator, which makes me sick. But my whole motivation is to clear the bullshit away, that's all. Thanks for your reply.

This is a prime example of the fallacy of "dog guilt". According to people who know better than I dog's aren't believed to understand contextual responsibility like humans i.e. they don't get the idea that they did something wrong but simply that something IS wrong.

So for instance if there is poop in the room they understand from experience that the owner will go ape shit when they find it. They do not however understand that because THEY did a poo the owner will go ape shit.

That guilty look/walk/hiding in the corner is because the Dog knows the human is likely about to behave irrationally. Every time there has been poop in the room or the owner has walked in on them in a particular place etc. the owner has hit them or shouted or whatever so they know bad things are coming.

The crucial difference is they don't understand the idea that its their fault, only the set of circumstances leading up to it.
This may mean you get some very limited positive effect from punishment as the Dog will realise that not going to a particular place etc. seems to avoid the bad thing happening but as far as understanding that they have behaved badly it wont get you anywhere.

Rewards for desirable behaviour are orders of magnitude more effective than trying to discourage the bad because of this. Dogs don't have morals they just want to please you and trying to appeal to their sense of decency is a waste of both your time, all you will get is a dog that's been scared into inactivity.

If you don't want them to poop on the carpet then you should simply reward them for pooping where you do want them to go. It wont take long before they only poop in the places you rewarded them because deep down all that little doggie wants in life is for you to be happy with them and give them attention.

This dog is basically just cowering and submitting because he's either had, about to have or has previously had an unpleasant experience relating to recent circumstances. It dose'nt know it did wrong but it does understand that the owner is mad/behaving crazy so it assumes a submissive posture and hopes the whole thing will eventually blow over.

Dogs aren't people, their dogs! :-D

You all read this, right? (Thanks @ant - calling attention to it again)

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pack-motorcyclists-chase-man-suv-attack-upper-manhattan-street-fender-bender-west-side-highway-article-1.1471585

The SUV driver, making a wild assumption here, doesn't look like the type to irrationally do road rage while driving around with wife and child on their wedding anniversary...

I think he might well have started subtly fucking with a small group of bikers that was actually much larger and more aggressive than he anticipated. Tempers and ego's do deeply irrational things to peoples behaviour and 2-5 tonnes of SUV can have a similar effect to several years of steroid abuse.

I know this because I have had cars/SUV's packed with whole families pull out on me, deliberately block lanes, shout abuse etc. because dad's subconscious knows he's driving a 3T death machine and that makes him feel invincible etc.

You are in no position to guarantee anything here any more than I. I'm not saying you are wrong either, Bikers can be absolute cunts in gangs (especially full on sports bikes and harley's who I generally don't get on with).

Things escalate and while I'm not saying no-one ever got victimised I'm also saying most altercations don't just fall out of the sky.

I'm not for a moment disputing that the bikers largely acted like arseholes, but I am suggesting the SUV driver likely at least did something to garner their ire. Maybe it was just over him calling the police. Maybe he was shouting "i'll show you" etc. and deliberately getting in their way as some of the bikers claim.

Maybe, just maybe....the us vs them mindset many people are displaying in this thread is exactly the same behavioural force that ultimately created the incident in this video . "I hate Bikers they ride like aggressive dicks" "I hate Cagers cause they drive with their head up their arse".

I'm very much trapped in the middle over a lot of things here but I think it's better to try and understand something rather than feeling the need to take sides. It was the unchecked human need to take sides and throw objectivity out of the window that facilitates this kind incident in the 1st place after all.

He's just as god made him... err, fucking evolution is shitty. If he had a sweet and/or manly voice, maybe he would have had a better childhood and not have gotten so angry and pointed out this insane Christian BS to our benefit.

I dunno man, I feel like the problems of the world start with irrational annoyances like "ugly face", "annoying voice" and end with FUCK YOUR NATION, FUCK YOUR BELIEFS, and, ultimately, FUCK YOUR LIFE. I know, I know, I'm placing the blame of serious issues on your shoulders. We're all to blame, so just recognize the butterfly effect of hate. I hate you, and I know it will spread it's wings through my words and then fan out across existence. Oh well.

Just saying. And I know you were also just saying, so it remains that we are both just saying, except that you're an asshole to this guy and I'm an asshole to you. So we have common ground. Now fuck you. (Fuck me too, I'm an asshole.)

Except we ended DADT, and DOMA and are well on our way to becoming a majority union of SSM.

Yes, there are far too many US politicians who will gladly cherry-pick data from various bibles to confirm their twisted definitions of the religion they prescribe to, but sweeping generalizations like "an American politician" are completely uncalled for any many "American politicians" may warrant some congratulatory statements.

Us in the states aren't completely enlightened yet, but to deny our progress could come off as condescending and irrational.

I think there's three main points here:

(1) The availability of shows online legally and illegally is what has encouraged people to invest in deeper storylines that build over time rather than episode to episode sitcom with little continuity. The pilot model and short term nature of these shows comes from a different era where there wasn't that same availability to catch up on a show you missed. As a result, people were reluctant to get overly involved in a storyline, nowadays it's the opposite.

(2) I think cable companies are always going to struggle to embrace video on demand because their advertising agreements as a major source of revenue (compared to subscriptions for Netflix) require them to stretch out the broadcast of the show. I'd wager that as an ad sponsor, the value of being able to reinforce a brand weekly as a opposed to dozens of times over short several day binge weekend is much larger.

(3) US TV tends to be based on very short term contracts and consequently short term narratives and story arcs. This becomes particularly evident where shows that never expected to make it to their 4th or 5th season see characters acting irrational and appearing to exhibit multiple personality disorder as writers try to inject drama into underdeveloped characters. You can see the lack of long term planning, and the writing looks like it's been done episode to episode, with the result being a mess. I'd say that this was a big issue with Lost and Heroes (subjectively speaking).

Comparatively, I would argue the success of something like Game of Thrones is partly attributed to a ready-made long term narrative from the source material which avoids these usual issues. In the case of House of Cards, they not only had the UK version to base it on and the additional flexibility that Netflix provided and I'm sure these were major contributing factors to the strength of the show.

Yeah, if technology was designed to disable video capture so the police could domestically take liberties without any verification of their actions, I can see this being a major blow to civil liberties and social accountability.

If however, this is just a "movie theatres want this" type thing, then there's no real hype. Plus, the attempt to disable one feature in one brand in a phone, such as the iPhone, would do nothing at all to protect the corrupt officers. It just means no one will buy an iPhone.

But, this is also hype over a patent. No actual device has been made with this. And just because it is possible, doesn't mean someone is doing it. I mean, it IS possible for us to build a space ship to harvest asteroids or space elevators . . . but alas, we are sadly Earth bound for the time being.

If anything, this discussion is what leads to this technology not being implemented, but the irate and irrational discussion does nothing but hype fear that has no rational basis. Except, you know, the NSA really is wiretapping this. . . .