Wait, are we thinking those shrimpy-looking dudes in breastplates and skirts and no spiked-bronze-caps are The Unsullied? Because if that's the case, I am way more upset than I would be about pacing issues.

Hmm..I call shenanigans. I work on 23rd st and there are no sidewalk blowers that ever raised my skirts to an almost unreasonable height.

Forty years ago. I remember three things from the book (at least, I think it was that book)

1. Grok

2. The "truth-teller." Someone asked them to say what color the house was, and she said -- the side that I can see is yellow.

3. Oh, yeah, four things -- the fact that every step she took, it looked like someone was arranging her long skirt, that somehow she was outside time.

4. The line "there are two types of people in the world -- those who know they are bi-sexual, and those who don't."

It's been forty years. I wonder how accurate my recollections are.

Is it time to re-read it?

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
A bit of a tangent from our discussion of evolution and religion: have you read Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land"?

>> ^shagen454:

I think she had another baby up there waiting to grab ahold.
>> ^ant:
Wait, she has a basket under her skirt?



QUAIIDD

It looks like underneath their skirts their legs are a furious blur of little baby steps. This would probably be pretty funny looking without the hoop skirts.

Either way, if I was taking hallucinogenic drugs and I saw this live, I would seriously lose my shit.

Wait, she has a basket under her skirt?

>> ^Enzoblue:

I could probably restrain myself and do this during rehearsal, but I would toss a mouse on stage just to see the skirts fly if I was there. BTW are they on their toes that whole time ya think?

inline skates

I could probably restrain myself and do this during rehearsal, but I would toss a mouse on stage just to see the skirts fly if I was there. BTW are they on their toes that whole time ya think?

@quantumushroom

When you look over American history, at all the great social changes from the ending of slavery, to women's suffrage, to the New Deal, to labor rights, to civil rights, to gay rights, conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history. Pro slavery, anti suffrage, anti labor, anti civil rights, anti gay.

If you could travel back in time, would you join hands with the conservatives of the past to defend these various forms of oppression, or would you have the courage to stand up to the crowd and rebel against these injustices?

Now, at the dawn of the next big step towards social justice, you sit in the bleachers of our mutual oppressors in a revealing skirt, waving a pair of pompoms like so many generations of conservatives before you.

When the schoolchildren of the twenty-fifth century study our era, do you really want your legacy to be one of unquestioned fealty to global corporate empire?

It's never too late to join the rebel alliance.

Classic image at 1:06. Chicks in skirts with shopping bags walking by the homeless guy who is likely a young war veteran. He risked his life, and likely lost some friends in the war... for their right to shop.

I like having Libertarians in discussions because they're a good voice to have because market forces are potential solutions to various issues, because sometimes we do turn away from market forces too soon. However, the philosophy just flat breaks down as any other philosophy does, and I think this debate kinda proves it. Stewart keeps coming back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forced public businesses open to the public to desegregate. According to libertarian philosophy, the free market should have ended segregation by citizens who were conscientious objectors to boycott any public business that was practicing racial segregation. If you notice in the debate, Napolitano skirts this when pressed, and kept saying the gov't should have desegregated gov't institutions, but that skirts the issue of what should have been done in privately owned public businesses. It's a point where libertarian philosophy breaks down, and true hardcore libertarians either know it and try to avoid it because it is so unpalatable to the general population, or they will outright admit that would be their stance and advocate for it.

Public schools are another example. The simple fact of the matter is the general population was not generally educated until the gov't began public schools, and society is all the better for it.

I like men's legs. Why don't you wear a skirt for me?

Kilts are sexy!


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Peroxide:
I appreciate what she has to say, but I have to say


Nice pants guybrush!

I really don't understand this lesbian thing...why would you want to wear pants and cut your hair short like a guy? If I was a girl, even if I liked girls I'd wear a nice dress because damn my legs are nice. Wait...what did you ask again...you asked me something didn't you?

I always go back to evolution.

Humans have, since the beginning, striven to "understand." We evolved over the thousands of years with this "defect."

I think it isn't a defect. I think it gave us an evolutionary advantage somehow. Otherwise, it would have gone the way of the appendix.

Doesn't make me like it, but it also means there is no point in trying to argue someone out of their beliefs. It is a waste of effort. They've got some gene, or brain structure, or something, that makes them susceptible to needing this kind of structure in their lives to make sense of it "all."

I like what the atheists are doing with their billboards and TV appearances -- concentrate on GENERAL education. Get the 'rational' word out there, as a life line to those poor folks born into households of faith and don't know that there is an alternative.

An It Gets Better project for non-believers, if you will.



In reply to this comment by Phreezdryd:
>> ^bareboards2:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Phreezdryd" title="member since October 17th, 2010" class="profilelink">Phreezdryd, I read your comment (and agree wholeheartedly!). You underestimated my ability to skip over certain loooooooooong back and forths.

I tried to read a lot of the above.

Mormonism starts with a known con artist. Scientology starts with an apparently well medicated science fiction author, and possibly on a bet. Christianity didn't exactly begin in the friendliest of climates, and we may never know who actually started it, besides what the text claims. The list goes on of course across the planet.

Not to mention all the "cults" that have ended badly, or still skirt the edges of society today. Even the people who just believe in their personal psychic or tarot cards, astrology, etc.

The mind boggles at this effort throughout history to answer things possibly unknowable. And that's evidence enough for me to think none of them have a clue.

>> ^bareboards2:

@Phreezdryd, I read your comment (and agree wholeheartedly!). You underestimated my ability to skip over certain loooooooooong back and forths.

I tried to read a lot of the above.

Mormonism starts with a known con artist. Scientology starts with an apparently well medicated science fiction author, and possibly on a bet. Christianity didn't exactly begin in the friendliest of climates, and we may never know who actually started it, besides what the text claims. The list goes on of course across the planet.

Not to mention all the "cults" that have ended badly, or still skirt the edges of society today. Even the people who just believe in their personal psychic or tarot cards, astrology, etc.

The mind boggles at this effort throughout history to answer things possibly unknowable. And that's evidence enough for me to think none of them have a clue.