No problem. I've got a few jokes for you straight off the bat - what's brown and sticky? A stick. What's ET short for? He's only got little legs. Did you hear the one about the constipated mathematician? He worked it out with a pencil. Doctor doctor, i feel like a pair of curtains. Pull yourself together! What's black and white and eats like a horse? A zebra. What's black and white, black and white, black and white? A penguin rolling down a hill.

Hell, Tim Vine does hundreds of one liners in half an hour and the majority of them are not at anyone's expense.

I think you've confused what you find funny with the term "humour" as it were. You may only find shadenfreude funny, and so you think all humour is shadenfreude, but it is patently obvious that things can be humourous without being at someone's expense and i find it almost petulant to be asked to prove it when it is so obvious. You almost certainly know loads of jokes like that. How does Bob Marley like his donuts? Wi' jam-in. I stood there, wondering why the frisbee was getting bigger and bigger..... and then it hit me. What did the fish say when he swam into the wall? Dam.

From what i remember of Lenny Henry's standup (like him or not) in the old days, he didn't often tell a joke at someone's expense. Tommy Cooper used to make people laugh by doing bad magic tricks. Les Dawson used to make people laugh by playing the piano badly as only a good pianist can. Terry Pratchett makes me laugh by conjuring up funny situations in a fictional world. I laughed at the Big Lebowski when he shaded the pad of paper to see what secret notes Jackie Treehorn was making and it turned out to be a doodle of a man holding his own cock. What do you call a fish with no eyes? A fsh. I bought some new viagra eye drops, cos they make me look hard. What do you call a man with a shovel on his head? Doug.

I could go on and on and on, but i don't get paid for this and i have other stuff to do, but i hope i've opened your eyes to whole new realms of comedy where people don't get hit in the face with stuff. Where are the Andes? At the end of your wristies. Why didn't the skeleton go to the party? He had no body to go with.

I'm so confused by your request for proof that i feel like someone's asked me "Air? What air? There's no air, i can't see any!"

I'm utterly dreading to read your reply if it says anything along the lines of "That ET joke is offensive to short people! That skeleton joke is offensive to people with eating disorders! The penguin joke is offensive to the penguin you pushed down the hill!" Please don't embarrass us both by doing that, we both know those jokes aren't offensive. (Or very funny, to be honest.)

I'm kinda horrified that that was an kiwi flag. Can I boot him out of NZ? Or, you know, chuck him in Mount Doom when he gets back.

(Coz we have that here. I know that because PJ keeps putting it in our tourism films with the short people in them.)

Yeah, I think short people should wear some kind of arm band so they'd be more easily recognizable!


>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^sillma:
>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^lucky760:
He's a pretty short dude. Without the measuring tape I'd have guessed him a six footer.

Okay, wait what ? six foot is short ? what kinda realm are you living in where six feet tall is short. What are you some gigantasaur 7 foot man looking down at us short six footers.

I think what he meant was that if there was nothing to compare his length to, he would've thunk he was 6', not a 5' midget like he is.

Oh shit, I did my math wrong, I was under the guise he jumped six feet and WAS SLIGHTLY taller than six feet, as he is taller than the stack. hah, short little fucker. My skyscraper body laughs at his ant like stature and I feel superior once again.

What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?

The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?

I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.

I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^KnivesOut:
So you're pre-supposing that women are not good at science, because historically there have been fewer women scientists? Were there fewer women scientists because they are "not suited" for it, or because they have historically been discouraged from doing so?
I think you might want to introspect a little, you are suffering from exactly the type of sexism that this campaign is attempting to thwart.
Wow, you have so completely missed my point, it's not even funny.
I am not pre-supposing anything about women in science. I'm all for anyone in science, as long as they're good at it. Their gender is irrelevant.
Again, what do we gain from having more women in science? What do we gain from having more men? More asians? More short people? These things are completely orthogonal to the outcome; more capable, passionate scientists.
Put it this way. When I started working as a programmer, it was just around the time of the dot com bubble. Whereas before programming was seen as something geeky and uncool, all of a sudden it was the career to have. As a consequence, there were suddenly tonnes of people working in programming who a) didn't care about it and b) were terrible at it.
The people who are good at science and care about it will naturally find their way to it. What women certainly don't need is some patronising bullshit program like this.

>> ^KnivesOut:

So you're pre-supposing that women are not good at science, because historically there have been fewer women scientists? Were there fewer women scientists because they are "not suited" for it, or because they have historically been discouraged from doing so?
I think you might want to introspect a little, you are suffering from exactly the type of sexism that this campaign is attempting to thwart.

Wow, you have so completely missed my point, it's not even funny.

I am not pre-supposing anything about women in science. I'm all for anyone in science, as long as they're good at it. Their gender is irrelevant.

Again, what do we gain from having more women in science? What do we gain from having more men? More asians? More short people? These things are completely orthogonal to the outcome; more capable, passionate scientists.

Put it this way. When I started working as a programmer, it was just around the time of the dot com bubble. Whereas before programming was seen as something geeky and uncool, all of a sudden it was the career to have. As a consequence, there were suddenly tonnes of people working in programming who a) didn't care about it and b) were terrible at it.

The people who are good at science and care about it will naturally find their way to it. What women certainly don't need is some patronising bullshit program like this.

>> ^quantumushroom:

1. It's beyond ridiculous to argue the Pledge somehow establishes a State-supported religion. Or any religion. Government favors only government and more government.
2. Though there mayhaps should be, there is no (impossible to enforce) Constitutional right to privacy. Peer pressure? Welcome to the real world.
3. Why worry over "massive harassment" of Pledge refuseniks but have no second thoughts about calling the BSA "bigots" for setting standards? Are you equally concerned the NBA is "bigoted" against short people?
Once again, atheists' image problem is theirs to correct, starting with the aforementioned and ending with the ALWAYS OUTSPOKEN belief that to be an atheist is to be automatically smarter than theists.
>> ^jwray:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.
2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).
3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.



Being tall is a bona fides requirement to excel in basketball. Heterosexuality is not necessary to do what the boy scouts do.

I have no qualms with calling the BSA leadership bigots because they are fucking bigots. Nothing's wrong with pledge refusers. Unison recitation of anything is appalling and reminiscent of the Borg, Nuremberg rallies, and church.

1. It's beyond ridiculous to argue the Pledge somehow establishes a State-supported religion. Or any religion. Government favors only government and more government.

2. Though there mayhaps should be, there is no (impossible to enforce) Constitutional right to privacy. Peer pressure? Welcome to the real world.

3. Why worry over "massive harassment" of Pledge refuseniks but have no second thoughts about calling the BSA "bigots" for setting standards? Are you equally concerned the NBA is "bigoted" against short people?

Once again, atheists' image problem is theirs to correct, starting with the aforementioned and ending with the ALWAYS OUTSPOKEN belief that to be an atheist is to be automatically smarter than theists.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.
2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).
3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.

@SDGundamX

*takes a deep breath*

Okay,you do get one thing partially right: while Harris and I are arguing one thing, you insist on hearing something else. We say "religion", "Islam", "ideology", and all you seem to hear is "Muslims". I've already repeatedly rejected your strawman understanding of our arguments, I won't do it again (when I said you should reread, I was not joking).

Since speaking plainly doesn't seem to reach you, lets try some analogy:

If the law of religion X, as stated in its founding texts, says that prostitutes should be put to death, as well as anyone who lets their hair grow out after wearing it short all their life; that exhibitionists should have their junk cut off; that short people are worth half as much as tall people, and should wear 10-inch highheels at all times; but "only" 33% of Xites in your country want X law to be enforced, should you fear for the state of human rights in that country (and for those poor, unethically raised Xite kids who would answer such a thing)? And what about the countries were such laws are actually being enforced? What about the increase of short people having their legs broken (in X and non-X countries) because they were not wearing high heels, so were "asking for it"?

Of course I'm not worried, why should I be? Look at all the "good" Xites are doing! X provides a sense of meaning, community, etc. Xites do charity, too! What? All that can and is done by non Xites as well? But why?? Where do they get their morals from?? And why would anyone want to criticize X? What could possibly be their endgame?? (you see the point I hope)


"Harm and misery" are subjective? Are you serious? With such a grossly unethical (and scientifically wrong) argument, I'm starting to wonder if you're arguing just for the sake of it, in which case go argue with shinyblurry, he likes repeating himself: I don't.

As for the "many denominations/interpretations" argument, have you ever heard a so-called "New Atheist" addressing a particular denomination instead of the shared ideology at the core when criticising religion? Why should that be in any way a mitigating factor? Yes, there are different takes on the core ideology (which we call by its name, be it Christianity or Islam), some more influenced by the progress made in the domains of morality and science (which are the same for all humans, i.e. secular, i.e. do not have their source in religion) than others. As I stated in a comment above, I'm pretty sure I can safely assert that the large majority of humans, regardless their creed or lack thereof, live empathetic and peaceful lives. Do I have to stress that that includes muslims?

Also, who's talking about "eliminating" religions? I'm sure most of us antitheists would love to be able to click our fingers and have all those backwards and inherently tyrannical ideologies disappear (and all the new-age woo and pseudo-science too), but I doubt any of us are so naive as to think such a thing possible. Instead, by raising awareness to religion's negative effects, we hope that people will eventually grow out of it, and speak up to fight (with ideas and reason; we're not the fundies) those who want such ideologies to effect our lives and others', especially when those effects are unethical and cause real "harm and misery". (srsly, I still can't believe you'd say such an ignorant, relativist thing)

You are not obliged to answer this post, but if you do, please, please, please, PLEASE try to grasp the arguments you are opposing; because if I get another strawman/hypocrisy-filled response I will simply ignore it. As you can tell, having to deal with such responses make me frustrated, and waste my time (I do not have the composure and patience of a, say, Sam Harris).

p.s.: "transformation of Islam into a political ideology"? Do you read the links you post? If you did, you might have come across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam


(Suggestion: don't say you have no intention of enraging a secular humanist and antitheist (that's me), and follow up with something like "I don't think I could ever[y] provide you with enough evidence to change your mind". Remember that H-word I was accusing you of? This is another example.)

I can see why it is illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. It can cause panic because people have no time to assess the validity of the statement.

Anything less direct must be protected by law, or everything will be lost. Fuck people's hurt feelings. Hurting someone's feelings is not like breaking someone's arm. And incitement to violence? Again, only if it is a very short term situation, where people feel they must rely on the source of the information or their lives will be at risk.

Making claims that an incoming ideology is cancerous to a society is not a life or death immediate situation. There is time for people to discuss the point and embrace or dismiss it based on their own findings. If I were to claim that all short people steal babies, then some moron goes and kills a midget "to protect his child", that is entirely the fault of the idiot who failed to invalidate my claim. There was no life or death spur of the moment decision that needed to be made.

Our laws must respect our need to bring up topics of concern for discussion, even if they are emotionally charged. Even if one side eventually is proven wrong. We must be able to debate, or society will collapse into some form of fascism like in Orwell's 1984.

Now society, on the other hand, can and should be allowed to shun whatever idiots come up with stupid claims. Scientology, for instance. Nobody should ever try to make it illegal, but if people want to picket in front of their buildings and point out how stupid they are, great! That's debate, and it will help people make more informed decisions.

And similarly, if Wilders (no relation btw) wants to make terrible films describing his feelings about Islam, I don't care how emotionally charged and obscene they are. I don't even care if they are completely wrong! He must be able to speak, otherwise the ability to hold open debate on any topic is in jeopardy. It is the responsibility of the listener to interpret and work through the validity of the claims he makes, and abstain from any action until reaching their own informed opinion. It should never be done in a court.

ooo and lets make all the brown babies white while were at it. and all the short people tall, get rid of brown eyes and hair. well building a super race then everyone will be tall, strong, smart, healthy and pretty... superior after all. oh and well get rid of diseases, none of the pretty people will ever get sick or die!!!
what could possibly go wrong?!

I'm tired of hearing about the strife in the Middle East; either let them fight it out, are get rid of ALL of them. Then the real war can start: the short people against the tall people!

Or maybe the blonds against the brunettes. No? How about people that can whistle vs. those who can't?

In the closing moments of this video, Obama said:

I'm reminded every single day, that I'm not a perfect man. I will not be a perfect president. But I can promise you this: I will always tell you what I think, and where I stand. I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you when we disagree. And most importantly, I will open the doors of government and ask you to be involved in your own democracy again.

There's a reason why he ended on that note -- it's the biggest reason why I feel so strongly about Obama.

He knows that the real, lasting damage that Bush left was a loss of faith in the pillars of our government. Our rights have been trampled, our courts have been made biased, our reputation tarnished, and our sense of liberty either perverted or erased entirely.

In short, people no longer believe in this country.

I think Obama is uniquely suited to heal that wound. Someone who can restore people's trust in the institutions that make us who we are as a nation.

Will he be able to solve all the issues created by or ignored by Bush? No, we'll be cleaning up after him for many Presidents to come. But he will bring us back together to work on fixing them, and who knows, we might even be able to fix things faster than we thought.

This video was absolutely perfect for showcasing all of that, and many, many people saw it.

The election isn't over yet, but it should've been a long, long time ago.

Thanks, amigo! Sorry I didn't thank you sooner. I've had pressing matters to attend to recently. Working on the sequel to 2 Girls 1 Cup.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*promote

Choggie, I have done a fair deal of research into the topic of Single Payer Health care systems and I have to object to your glib and one sided presentation of the topic.

First suggesting that the distribution of health care resources is an 'ancillary issue' that we 'hem and haw over' is really selling the issue short. People live and die based on the stance we take. While you could validly argue that there are more important issues out there, that does not mean that this individual issue is unimportant.

Secondly your description of America's top notch health care only truly applies to the clinics that are available to those with enough money. Meanwhile many lower/lower middle class Americans choose not to completely mortgage their future and wind up far more ill or dead because of this decision. While America does have the best health care in the world, its limited availability has resulted in America having one of the shortest life expectancies and highest infant mortality rates in the western world.

Third, the flaws that are admittedly present in more socialized health care systems are not sufficient to completely disregard it as a possibility. People are often forced to wait and taxes would be noticeably higher. However, all Americans would be able to go to see medical professionals, even when they do not require emergency medical care.

Finally, a more socialized health care system could be beneficial to our economy. Though taxes would rise, people would not be paying the same ungodly insurance rates or hospital bills. People would feel far more financial freedom as they can now spend more of their hard earned money on themselves, without having to worry about one injury putting them in the poor house.

While I admit that their are valid objections to socialized health care/ health insurance, the hostile rejection it often receives is completely unneeded. We can discuss the topic without resorting to narrow mindedness, generalizations or petty name calling.

You had me at "Short people got no reason to live..."