>> ^budzos:

>> ^ReverendTed:
Chimpanzees raised in captivity are usually taught to communicate using hand signs from ASL. Anyone here know sign language?

No but I have a good guess at what pointing to an object and then pointing to your palm means.
The sign I'm actually most curious about is the meshed fingers. (He) does that a couple of times.

>> ^ReverendTed:

Chimpanzees raised in captivity are usually taught to communicate using hand signs from ASL. Anyone here know sign language?


No but I have a good guess at what pointing to an object and then pointing to your palm means.

And to the idiots calling me Dr Doolittle. My whole point is that this is pretty obvious and I'm not claiming to be Dr Doolittle but someone who can observe an event and distinguish my own perception from the psychological priming (the description).

Chimpanzees raised in captivity are usually taught to communicate using hand signs from ASL. Anyone here know sign language?

>> ^shinyblurry:

If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding?

Yes. And frankly, as long as all parties are consenting adults, I have no problem with polygamy. It's not my thing, but if that floats your boat, go nuts.

>> ^shinyblurry:

How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car?

That is exactly the kind of retarded question I would have expected. Kudos to you for keeping my expectations of you consistently low. If it was anyone else, I wouldn't even have to explain this, but since you clearly have the intellectual capacity of a slightly stupid chimpanzee....

You cannot marry a dog. It is illegal and always will be, because they cannot give an informed consent,
i.e. completely fucking irrelevant to a discussion pertaining to what two adults decide to do.
>> ^shinyblurry:

He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.

He's legally within his rights to do so. And once again, the rest of us get to call him an asshole for doing so.

And as for "corrupting the institute of marriage"? I think you'll find that heterosexual christians are fucking that up just fine by themselves.

>> ^Skeeve:

Nice of them to make it simple for kids... but we did not evolve from Chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor to Chimpanzees. Sloppy simplification can be worse than no simplification at all - especially when the "my grandma wasn't a monkey!" people get involved.


Yeah but stupid people will always be stupid. At least this way the kids who this does spark an interest with will go on to learn the facts eventually themselves, even if it is in the way of going one day to their mate, or a teacher in class "oh, we descended from apes didn't we?" and then they are in a prime position to learn the complex truth of the matter, because they give a shit and it was already somewhat in their head.

I just like things that are entertaining and educational, I can see the use of it even if it isn't bang on scientifically correct. I can see your aggravation too, if Bob Hale oversimplified parenting or grammar (even though I'm not great grammatically I'm not a rapist and it fucks me off when I see it) I'd be straight up on my soapbox

Nice of them to make it simple for kids... but we did not evolve from Chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor to Chimpanzees. Sloppy simplification can be worse than no simplification at all - especially when the "my grandma wasn't a monkey!" people get involved.

>> ^Trancecoach:

According to the evidence-supported book, Sex at Dawn, which looks at the anatomical and behavioral origins of human sexuality, it appears that, in general, humans are far more free-loving, cooperative, and communal in their behaviors (much like the bonobos) than we are competitive and alpha-dominated (as is found with the chimpanzee).


This is true*













*except for all the examples of people not doing those things.

According to the evidence-supported book, Sex at Dawn, which looks at the anatomical and behavioral origins of human sexuality, it appears that, in general, humans are far more free-loving, cooperative, and communal in their behaviors (much like the bonobos) than we are competitive and alpha-dominated (as is found with the chimpanzee).

Oh WP, that vine swings both ways. Just do me a favor and try not to cover those of us in the middle with the fecal rhetoric while you feel the need to sling it out with "the far left fringe"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I will be genuinely surprised if these protesters remain non-violent for much longer.
Elements of OWS have been violent for for some time. This particular incident was preceeded by (essentially) a riot where OWS goons were hurling rocks, bottles, and other crap at the police. The order went out for the crowd to disperse. They ignored it. At that point once the crowd has been warned and still refuses to obey the police it is pretty stupid to pretend that rubber bullets and tear gas are somehow out of line. Whatever point they may have ever had is now entirely lost in a sea of their own bad behavior. Behaving like jackasses and then whining about it when grown-ups are forced to put you in line doesn't make you a hero or noble. It makes you a giant douche.
But what can we expect from a group kickstarted by known anti-capitalist Kalle Lasn, fronted by his rag Adbusters, and trained by a professional anarchist running around conducting sessions on how to get arrested? The good book says, "By their fruits ye shall know them."
http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstre
et-the-rap-sheet-so-far/
It will eventually turn to violence if people aren't allowed to be heard
Lol. They've been 'heard' for weeks. The news media has been giving them almost constant coverage, and on the national side it is mostly positive. The NYT alone has published over 180,000 words on OWS. But of course OWS and other prog-libs are still angry because they think they haven't gotten ENOUGH coverage, or that their coverage hasn't been as positive as they wanted.
And like most things, I know exactly why they feel this way. These hooligans are at the far left fringes of society. On a 100 point scale where 1 is "crazed liberal" and 100 is "crazed conservative", they are probably somewhere around 10 or 15. They aren't mainstream. They are out there. WAAAAY out there in many cases.
The news media coverage has been left-positive, but not AS left-positive as they want. If we scaled it, the overall media coverage of OWS has been around 35-40. Mostly centrist, leaning left. But that is not good enough for OWS and the prog-lib sympathizers. Unless the coverage mirrors their own bias (10 or 15) they consider it 'right wing'. This is not because the coverage isn't leftist. They feel this way because the coverage happens to be to the right of THEMSELVES.
So essentially they are mad because the entire national media isn't an OWS propoganda outlet. Anything less than that is somehow "unfair" or "not enough coverage". People who are chimpanzees swinging on the radical vines of the far left fringe will continue to fling their poo until everyone is as covered with it as they are.

I will be genuinely surprised if these protesters remain non-violent for much longer.

Elements of OWS have been violent for for some time. This particular incident was preceeded by (essentially) a riot where OWS goons were hurling rocks, bottles, and other crap at the police. The order went out for the crowd to disperse. They ignored it. At that point once the crowd has been warned and still refuses to obey the police it is pretty stupid to pretend that rubber bullets and tear gas are somehow out of line. Whatever point they may have ever had is now entirely lost in a sea of their own bad behavior. Behaving like jackasses and then whining about it when grown-ups are forced to put you in line doesn't make you a hero or noble. It makes you a giant douche.

But what can we expect from a group kickstarted by known anti-capitalist Kalle Lasn, fronted by his rag Adbusters, and trained by a professional anarchist running around conducting sessions on how to get arrested? The good book says, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

It will eventually turn to violence if people aren't allowed to be heard

Lol. They've been 'heard' for weeks. The news media has been giving them almost constant coverage, and on the national side it is mostly positive. The NYT alone has published over 180,000 words on OWS. But of course OWS and other prog-libs are still angry because they think they haven't gotten ENOUGH coverage, or that their coverage hasn't been as positive as they wanted.

And like most things, I know exactly why they feel this way. These hooligans are at the far left fringes of society. On a 100 point scale where 1 is "crazed liberal" and 100 is "crazed conservative", they are probably somewhere around 10 or 15. They aren't mainstream. They are out there. WAAAAY out there in many cases.

The news media coverage has been left-positive, but not AS left-positive as they want. If we scaled it, the overall media coverage of OWS has been around 35-40. Mostly centrist, leaning left. But that is not good enough for OWS and the prog-lib sympathizers. Unless the coverage mirrors their own bias (10 or 15) they consider it 'right wing'. This is not because the coverage isn't leftist. They feel this way because the coverage happens to be to the right of THEMSELVES.

So essentially they are mad because the entire national media isn't an OWS propoganda outlet. Anything less than that is somehow "unfair" or "not enough coverage". People who are chimpanzees swinging on the radical vines of the far left fringe will continue to fling their poo until everyone is as covered with it as they are.

olympic comitee, I have but three words: Synchronized... Chimpanzee.. Sports.

Yep. He said a bunch more crap too. The only thing I like about this is that I've never heard the evolution of language as a tool explained.>> ^darkpaw02:

He said that chimpanzees cannot learn from each other, which is not true.
http://www.janegoodall.org/media/news/difference-learning-sexes

He said that chimpanzees cannot learn from each other, which is not true.

http://www.janegoodall.org/media/news/difference-learning-sexes

5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

THAT'S NOT A MONKEY! IT'S A CHIMPANZEE!

Grr.