Far from conclusive, but the idea of a designer-god (demiurge) was at one time a thought provoking perspective on existence.

However, your statement is best expressed as a belief made through faith; NOT a conclusive argument made through PROOF, the definition of which you're incorrectly ascribing your statement to.

Which makes it less thought provoking now that we have more advanced ways of reasoning and pondering the universe. i.e. the scientific method.

Admirable, perhaps, to still cling to said belief, but not convincing in the least, considering it is something that is neither deniable nor undeniably a possibility. Concluding science to be "proof" of God is merely a logical trap to be avoided.

EDIT:
"...therefore the inference to the best explanation is that which points to a mind, and therefore a designer."

Also, just because our theories of abiogenesis are not as sophisticated as our theories of evolution, does not suddenly mean that a designer is the final, undeniable conclusion. If that were the case with science we'd drop all of our theories in conclusion that it must be a god. We can't connect our theory of gravity to abiogenesis, therefore it is God. Laughable conclusion based in logical fallacy.

The only thing that infers such an explanation is your mind saying it is so. Similar to my inference that trees being phallic and in abundance, necessitate a giant penis god. You fail to see that science isn't merely based upon human logic and pattern recognition, it is based in mathematical observation -- which your logical leaps and bounds are not able to compete with, no matter how hard your brain tries to find a hidden pattern in anything you can grasp for, like a man drowning in an ocean of possibilities.

Anyone can infer anything from something of similar value, ergo inference without a scientific basis is silly.

Oh Hi, I express my anger through flying footwear!

I don't know which culture the trend of throwing your shoes crawled out from under, but it is laughable. The people who do it are laughable, and anyone who thinks it should be taken seriously needs to be laughed at.

The day that throwing your shoe at someone becomes a thought provoking meaningful act is the day I'm no longer listening to anyone.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'solar, roadways, reality, check, its laughable' to 'solar roadways, reality check, thunderf00t, are they real' - edited by xxovercastxx

May be simply a matter of beauty being as always, residing in the eye of the beholder there newtboy, and that the ugly or judgmental aspects of one's personal preference lurks as some superficial and systemic admission of a personal failing with regard to people in whatever capacity they find themselves in through the necessity of of their chosen profession.

Besides my personal disdain for such a flippant and overtly less than laughable comment, try and find this "five dollar hoe" you speak of anywhere in Berlin besides at some used gardening supply store or estate sale.

Huckabee's obliviousness to the fact that the Bible HAS been rewritten and edited many times throughout history is laughable.

I have neither the time, nor the inclination to tear apart your illogical arguments. I will just expose one nonsense; Your belief is that God just is. He was not created. Well, according to your holy books god decided to create the "heavens and the earth and all that dwell on it." So, why did he not do it sooner? Of course, if he just "is" then there is no sooner as he is eternal, without beginning or end. But even if you dismiss time, there was, according to your myth a, let's call it a point, when he started to create. Oh, and he was truly clever creating the heavens and earth before creating light. The whole concept of a god is utterly flawed and so obviously man made that it is, literally, laughable.

The Superman 1978 film was an enigma, for being a superhero film that didn't absolutely suck.
Then there were the Burton Batman films, which had something special to them that made us feel comic films weren't horribly cheesy.
Then there was a break for a decade of suck, before the first X-men film found that missing link between fantasy and humanity that audiences could relate with on a realistic level. It was bolstered by the first Spiderman, and then the Iron Man film really cemented the legitimacy of comic-based films from there.
That's not even mentioning the Dark Knight films.
But has anyone noticed that gradual slide into mediocrity/laughability in the last few years/sequels? Everything since then has lost that human element that could make us relate to the protagonists and suspend our disbelief, and for me it's felt that everything in this genre has slid backwards to that immature and unrealistic setting.
Meh.

I didn't mean to, I thought that's what you wanted, no government anarchy, followed by free market utopia. Non-governmental forcible governing is a terrifying concept to most.
Now you understand...at least that part.
Voting works, if there are enough like minded people that vote with you, and one that's willing to represent them.
From here..." This from the guy who says he pays little in taxes?"
here..." I can't speak for them, but I know quite a number of folks who would find it quite laughable that you think that you contribute your "fair share" and here..."Some statists are actually benefitting from the system."
Maybe I misunderstood, but seemed like I'm a 'taker' from that.

> ""Um...colonies are places 'captured' and then ruled by foreign governments...that's how they work."

More private school wisdom? So sad. I actually grew up in a colony.

> "They were quite upset at taxation without representation (not in taxation at all, get it right please)."

They were upset about a 3% tax dude. 3%.

> "Interesting you again completely ignore the fact that you use the services you shirk from paying for (in any underhanded way possible), and typical of those that think taxes are 'wrong' in their entirety or concept."

This from the guy who says he pays little in taxes?

I can't speak for them, but I know quite a number of folks who would find it quite laughable that you think that you contribute your "fair share" to the roads you use as compared to that which they contribute relative to their use of the roads. But I guess that you can convince yourself of anything with enough confusion.

""'Bottom of the social ladder'? Hmmmm. Doesn't feel that way where I sit, on my beautiful acre of orchard in my 100%paid for home surrounded by friends and family. I only wish this was the bottom, then no one could complain about their status.""

Like I said, you may enjoy your station. Some statists are actually benefitting from the system.

#2 They weren't dealing drugs in that video, were they? And the Oakland vice squad does conduct raids, does it not? I personally know a detective who worked there for years.

#3: "how many slaves do you own?"

Obviously slavery violates self-ownership rights. Shooting a gun on your own property violates no one's rights.

#4: "They document it in hopes the police will do something."

Don't hold your breath.

#5: "Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks "

Sure, like in Pittsburgh or Singapore.

> "they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them."

Tax breaks is not "paying them." In fact, you have no moral right to tax. Taxation is theft.

#6: You're too vague positing little more than a bunch of opinions and declarations. Nothing here which really warrants a response.

#7: "They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period."

That's what I said. Only "public" property allows that kind of violent crime. No legitimate business would. So, while Disney can raise the standard of living on and around its grounds, it's under no pretense to maintain the civility outside of its property.

> "They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation."

When I say "regulation," I mean state-imposed regulation. Of course, however someone wants to regulate within their own private property is within their rights to self-ownership and private property. It's fine since it is not aggression/coercion. I'm not against private regulation. In fact, I regulate who enters into my house or uses my car. Duh. Don't you?

#8: "Oakland HAS been high crime with little money"

This is often the case. The same underlying causes for crime and poverty.

> "Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street."

Certainly not while the owners are using the property or while they are liable for allowing a crime to occur there. But tell me: where specifically?

I was making reference to what is happening in that video. If you want to talk about other specific instances, then tell me which ones and we can look at each one specifically.

> "Your apparent assertion that police have unfairly and wrongly stopped mob justice that would assuredly solve all the crime (by committing crimes against criminals) is laughable."

I don't know where you get this "mob justice" from. You are reading into what I said or something.

#9: "nor can you for $35 a month."

Yes I can, and better than what the police offers.

> "People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?"

If you are talking about the police, then nothing really.

> "Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know."

Technically, they are used mostly to pay for war and the national debt. But police is also paid from taxes.

#10: "Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there."

I don't know if this is true, but apparently you do. Somehow, I doubt they are struggling so much that they cannot buy a gun.

> "they can't afford rent and food"

Most "hardworking people" in Oakland cannot buy food? Really?

> "especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up."

I guess they'll still have you to pay for them and the wars and the debt. Although I'm not against charity, in fact I am actively engaged in such activities. But if you need my money, then put the guns away and ask nicely.

> "it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there"

But most law abiding people don't want to break the law on this or many other things.

> "Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me."

I kind of do.

> "I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream"

No, that was @enoch who said it was.

> "it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing."

You always have 'terrible governing' when it comes from the state, politicians and such. It's a logical fallacy to conclude otherwise.

> "I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more)."

Sorry, but this will NEVER happen. (But, hey, good luck with that. I'm certainly not stopping you. Go ahead. "Do better.")

> "Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it."

Then you must not be paying attention. Virtually all progress comes from the free market.

And again, if you are not interested, then it doesn't matter if you find it or not, does it? It's your life. You decide what you want and go ahead and do it and live with the consequences.

> "Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm."

In my opinion, a government cannot be libertarian. The logical conclusion to libertarian non-aggression is anarchy, i.e., no ruler; no state. A "libertarian" state is not really "libertarian." It's a contradiction in terms.

> "I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree."

So what? Who cares if they agree or not? They obviously don't agree and, therefore, as you say, they live in Oakland and are "struggling." If most people in Oakland agreed, they could probably turn things around. But as you say, they don't. So they, like everyone else, must live with the consequences of their decisions, their beliefs, their behaviors.

See, the good thing about being libertarian is that you don't really need to convince anyone of anything. That futile endeavor is the lot of those who hope -- against all evidence -- that they will somehow get "good government" if they can only convince others to elect the "better politicians." I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that. I'm certainly not counting on it ever happening. You have your idea of what "good government" means and how to get there, and so do many millions of other people. And they obviously don't agree.

> "And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results."

Questionable in what way(s)? What do you know about it?

> "BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think."

The Tea Party is not libertarian. They have some libertarian preferences, but that's it. They are certainly not anarchists.

Anyway, in sum of all of this, let me say that, if you think you have the answers, then I encourage you to put them into practice. See if you can and deal with the problem!

1. OK
2. Not THESE crimes, the one's I talked about. When violence and drug dealing can happen in front of the police with no repercussion, it's de-facto decriminalized.
3. BULLSHIT. Oakland is not telling anyone they can't hire private security, they do say you can't form a violent gang (which seems to be what you're advocating) even if it's intent is to stop other gang activity. What private institutions are clamoring to come in and solve the crime issues, only to be held at bay by the state? I've never heard of one (and a mob or gang of citizens does not count).
There are numerous legal marijuana dispensaries in Oakland, legalized drug dealers according to the feds....and pharmacies.
What, crime happening on private property is no one's business but the property owner?!? Just wow. Don't know where to go with that mindset...but I might ask, how many slaves do you own?
4. yes, most of the video was shot on private property. Edit: Ok, I noticed it's not mostly on private property. Lot's of crime is, but not this. I was wrong....still...
Private security does not stop this kind of criminal, especially when outnumbered. They document it in hopes the police will do something.
5. yes, I have heard (and disagree with) that complaint. Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks and/or free land grabs), they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them. Never heard of it happening, anywhere. Please give an example.
6. Not for the illegal businesses, which are a large percentage. There are regulations to be sure, but many aren't enforced and they certainly aren't over-regulated as I see it, with small exceptions. Over-regulation did not cause the crime in Oakland, that's just ridiculous and ignorant.
7. Disney is not Oakland...and has not gentrified the surrounding areas. I know someone that lived across the freeway, and it was HIGH crime. They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period. Living in their gated communities is ridiculously expensive and regulated down to the colors you can paint your home or the types of grass you may have in your lawn. It's draconian. They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation.
8. Oakland HAS been high crime with little money, no statist intervention was ever needed. Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street. Your apparent assertion that police have unfairly and wrongly stopped mob justice that would assuredly solve all the crime (by committing crimes against criminals) is laughable.
9.Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know. For the portion that does, you could not hire private security that did anything, nor can you for $35 a month. People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?
10. Not what I said, buy your idea is to arm EVERYONE, and everyone can't afford a gun. That does not mean only criminals can afford one, that's terrible comprehension. Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there. Even if guns were cheaper, they can't afford rent and food, so it doesn't help...especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up. ;-} It's not an issue of them being over-regulated that stops most (or any, it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there) from owning one, it's just not.
Because people find ways to pay their bills and fines does not mean they have disposable income to spend on firearms, as you suggest.
Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me. That seems to work for you. That's fine. First I'll ask, how long have YOU lived in Oakland, since you're an 'expert' and I am not (I never claimed to be)? How long did you live in the libertarian utopia you want to emulate?
I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream, but I do think it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing. I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more).
Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it.
Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm. I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree. If I'm wrong about that, we're all in trouble.
And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results. People are inherently difficult to study, we're all freaks. (every mention reminds me of the foundation sci-fi series).
BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think.

im no statist but this video is so childishly naive as to be laughable.

might as well call the free market jesus.

jesus is the way and the light.
follow jesus for salvation.
only jesus can absolve you of your sins.

this is about power.
if the libertarian is willing to acknowledge that the government is bloated and corrupt but unwilling to recognize the abuse of power wrought by corporations...because the corporation is part of the "free market"...they can end their sermon right there.

i am no longer interested.

if a libertarian preaches the importance of individual sovereignty and individual rights but dismisses that they are part of a community in a larger society.
they can proselytize at somebody elses door.

if a libertarian wishes to shower me with the glories of private property and ownership but ignore the importance and basic human dignity of the very workers who produce everything for those private owners.

then i say unto them that they wish to enslave their fellow man and the freedom they seek is for them alone and the rest of humanity be damned all in the name of profit and greed.

they can take their cult of ayn rand and masturbate somewhere else.

UNLESS....
they are willing to admit that:
1.as @VoodooV pointed out,we live in a society and a society is populated by PEOPLE.

2.that people deserve more than just the right to trade freely (which i agree with) but that human dignity and compassion,and yes..the right for life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.that the corporation is actually MORE vicious than a government.a corporation is amoral by design! so if we are going to address the abusive powers of government,the abuses of corporations should be recognized as well.

4.the argument that corporations would not exist without governments is a canard.that may have been true in 1910 but no longer.there are corporations that have a higher GDP than most nation states.

5.the argument that governments start wars are only half-truths.can you guess what the other half is? thats right! banks and corporations using their power and influence to oppress third world nations...through the use (or abuse to be more accurate) of this nations military.see:smedley butler.

6.while a non-state would be amazing i am not naive enough to believe it could ever happen in our lifetime.yes many arbitrary borders have been penned by empires but there will always be lines drawn by cultural,religious and ethnicity..lets be honest.

7.while i do not share voodoos optimism in this democratic representative republics current health status (i feel it is broken and dysfunctional),it is a FAR better thing than the authoritarian,totalitarian system that is the american corporation.unless they went all democratic on me and i didnt get the memo.

8.government does have a role in our society,though it should be limited.
defense (not illegal and pre-emptive wars of aggression).
fraud control and law enforcement.
roads,fire,police,education and health,because thats what a society does for each other.
we take care of each other.
you dont like that? move to the mountains..have fun!

9.the corporate charter should be re-written."for the public good" should be re-instated for one thing.
a.i was talking to a libertarian and he used the term "non-aggression" and i really REALLY liked this.so a corporation will be held responsible for any and all:destruction to the ecology (local and abroad),destruction of peoples health,home and property.externalization of any sort will be seen as "aggression" and the CEO and all officers will be held liable to be paid by:dissillusion of company of jail time,they can choose.
b.a corporation is NOT a person and ZERO funds will be drawn from company money to purchase a legislator.they may spend as much money as they wish from their own personal accounts,but ALL contributions shall be made public over a certain amount.
c.any corporation that has been found to pay their workers so little as to put the burden on the tax payer shall be found performing an "aggressive" act against the american people and shall either pay the amount in full or forfeit their company.

dammit.im rambling ...again.
but oh baby am i digging this non-aggression dealio!

can i rewrite the corporate charter?
please please please please.....

*promote the discussion

In general, when it comes to new technology or scientific breakthroughs, anytime I hear that something will be ready in "just" 5 years, I know it is laughable. If we had actually achieved everything that was predicted to be ready in 5 years, the world would be radically different.

Secondly, this is very effective marketing, but in a subterfuge/propaganda sort of way. Everyone is talking about Amazon, its vision, its radical attempt to change the way things are delivered, etc. just in time for the holiday shopping season. What more could a brand want?

But what are we not talking about? Amazon's work conditions for and treatment of its seasonal workers (of which my aunt and uncle are two) and Amazon's business model being built upon a shell game of tax avoidance.

Amazon is waving some shiny new thing in your face that will never come to fruition so that you don't open your eyes to what they are really doing right now.

(I also posted this reply on his profile not realising in case that causes any confusion)

My 1st post in that thread was intended purely to inform. Most people I meet who own dogs are painfully unaware of what I was describing and consequently foster futile behaviour and negative emotional outbursts around things their dogs do (the idea that everyone in that thread already knows about this is laughable). This is far from the biggest ill in the world but it's there and I saw an opportunity to present an alternative view of events in the hope that perhaps someone somewhere might learn something (or at least consider an idea rather than just mindlessly following social tradition). Where I learned that idea is irrelevant, it stands or falls on its own merits.

Your response garnered hostility because it was indistinguishable from saying "your spoiling our fun by trying to suggest that the animal might actually be terrified and confused and our fun is more important than someone/thing suffering". You didn't try to challenge what I said, you simply indicated some level of disdain for the fact I was even trying to say something intelligent, or because I didn't mindlessly jump on the "look at the terrified dog" bandwaggon like the rest.

Your damm right it was an emotional response, the attitude you displayed from my POV causes untold suffering throughout the world (and I don't just mean dogs which in the grand scheme of things is relatively harmless). If you read my reply again you'll see that at no point did I suggest you were disagreeing with me, I was insulting you precisely because you didn't even try, you just tried to indite me for trying to raise the level of the conversation. It was that and that alone that garnered my hostility, I'm happy to be proven wrong or even for people to switch off and ignore me but to give me flack just for trying I have little patience for.

You have clearly misunderstood my whole argument against you, if I were to take my own advice then I would either challenge your point (which I did) or accept that I didn't understand enough to try and counter intelligently.

What you did was insult me for just trying to make an intelligent argument. That is where the " little gem of "Fuck You"" came from.

Also it's no good getting on a high horse about me being "over sensitive" when you took the time to jump onto my profile and unleash a boatload of bile yourself. That argument would only have worked if you said it to yourself and got on with your life. But you didn't, you felt you had to give me a piece of your mind just like I did.
I'm not going to call you over sensitive, I'm just going to call you human because that's what you are, just like me ;-).

Edit: for the record that Bill Hicks quote refers to precisely the kind of anti-intellectualism I'm accusing you of. It was because an audience member objected to Bill trying to raise an idea above the trivial self interested level that they felt had been threatened. Or to put it another way Bill had spoiled their fun by trying to make an intelligent point rather than just wallowing in their own unconsidered ignorance. As far as I'm concerned it was entirely appropriate.

Wow, that first one was so far off the mark, it's laughable.

When you hair stands up on end, it is sticking out further from your boding, giving you a slightly greater lead time for anything brushing up against you. It also gives you greater sensitivity to physical stimuli that may brush near your body. It makes you more sensative to small air currents as well that are flowing over your skin.

All things things help in survival, fight or flight type situations.