Ray H.

Birthdays, anniversaries, and the like are excuses to party with people that you enjoy being around. Party hard.

He clearly means the theory of gravity.

I have no understanding of how TYT has gained any traction as a truth-finding news dispenser. Without fail, every segment I've seen is like this one: poor arguments, no objectivity, name-calling, condescension to guests. And on a superficial level, they aren't even appealing presenters. There's no charm or wit. I don't agree with Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers or Jon Stewart on a thousand issues, but they're brilliant presenters. The only sane explanation I can come up with is that TYT is the subtlest joke ever played on the public. Andy Kaufman in a wrestling match, yeah yeah yeah yeah.

He eliminates the FSM as a god, because God is unchanging. Anything that flies, he contends, is in the process of change and, since God is unchanging, cannot be God. But he doesn't appear to realize that this logic eliminates the meddling god of the Christian faith, as well. The god that Woods is actually arguing for would be unknowable in any way, shape or form. It would make no contact with humans, since "making contact" would constitute change from a state where no contact was being made. Right?

There was some bandying about on yesterday's call-in show that the hominid fossils known as Lucy are a hoax. The caller claimed that fossils were found miles apart and in different strata to compose an individual. This is false. In 1973, a knee joint was found for an individual that walked upright. The following year, at a site 1.6 miles from the knee joint find, hundreds of unduplicated bone fragments comprising 40% of a skeleton were found on a single slope in a single strata. These were called "Lucy". The original knee joint was a separate find from a separate specimen. There was never a claim that it was Lucy's knee. Lucy Not Lucy http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

The last paragraph: "In masking the very exploitative mechanisms of labor that it fuels, DWYL is, in fact, the most perfect ideological tool of capitalism. It shunts aside the labor of others and disguises our own labor to ourselves. It hides the fact that if we acknowledged all of our work as work, we could set appropriate limits for it, demanding fair compensation and humane schedules that allow for family and leisure time." The author (a female, btw) mentions low wages, underpaid workers at least five other times in the article.

The article is, among other things, a call for a living wage. In other words, the author doesn't think capitalism has led to an increase in living standards, but instead has kept the masses down. This is obviously false after a moment's thought comparing living conditions of the "poor" in the U.S., Australia, Canada, etc to those in the former Soviet bloc, the Far East, South America, etc. To the degree that market forces are left alone, societies improve as a whole. This article is in the same vein as Peter Joseph's "structural violence" gibberish.

This article wound up on my Facebook feed. Basically, the author wants everyone to feel guilty about happiness they find in a career or for creating jobs for people with low skills. Throw in some pity for academics, women, and the ever-exploited entry level worker. This paragraph makes me giggle every time (DWYL= do what you love): "Ironically, DWYL reinforces exploitation even within the so-called lovable professions where off-the-clock, underpaid, or unpaid labor is the new norm: reporters required to do the work of their laid-off photographers, publicists expected to Pin and Tweet on weekends, the 46 percent of the workforce expected to check their work email on sick days. Nothing makes exploitation go down easier than convincing workers that they are doing what they love." Snapping pictures! Pinning! Tweeting! Refreshing email! The man's keeping us down!

Milton Friedman, as per usual, sums it up perfectly.

I got voted down for a post that (1) pointed out the hypocrisy in another post, and (2) cited multiple research papers refuting said post. Of course, neither was acknowledged. Vote me down again. Evidence that red meat decreases inflammation. Neu5Gc as a risk factor for atherosclerosis is still in the research stage. The article cited in the video was not a trial study. It was proposing hypotheses for further study. The phrases "may facilitate", "could include" and "may exacerbate" are all inconclusive statements. The jury is out on this issue.

I just want to point out that I have at no point said how anyone should eat. I don't care what you eat. (Don't eat other people.)

He linked to a blog post discussing a peer-reviewed paper. Is that youtube series peer-reviewed? Is the Hans Dehmelt article peer-reviewed? Is your e-book peer-reviewed? No? Then, after your own example, we should dismiss them. Here are some some articles and papers with lots of citations. Diet influences evolution Scientists use the term "omnivore" and find that humans and other primates have been such for a very long time. Eating meat allowed humans to reduce gut size, increase brain size, and reproduce faster. Wild boars eating a really big earthworm. You're right: you shouldn't base your diet on what a wild boar eats. You could base it on what genetically equivalent, healthy, and flourishing, ancestral H. sapiens ate, though.

I'm not watching a 16 part youtube series, and I'm not reading your e-book. I did watch the middle video, though. You cited one "research" paper done by a physicist. He wrote another "research" paper in 2008 entitled "You Are a Primate: Live as One". In it he writes, Here, for about twenty million years, evolution had superbly developed (our human ancestors') fruit spying and picking skills to a degree that their numbers increased to taxing the limited food resources. This in turn encouraged some of their more adventurous members to venture out into the surrounding savannas and scavenge the carcasses of large grazing animals brought down by predators and to ignore the shortcomings of this new diet that they were less well adapted to. This group probably originated the line leading to Homo sapiens, us. He recognizes the evidence that hominids ate meat. Oddly, he only sees this as having "shortcomings." He apparently sees no connection between higher energy food and the increase in brain size that clearly occurred in the evolution of hominids. I mean he points out a grand change in lifestyle (meat-eating) that correlates with a grand change in anatomy (brain size) and even states that this group (the one that eats meat!) probably led to Homo sapiens. But somehow he interprets this to mean our optimal diet should be close to chimps', since he says, They did not fall for the extremely unhealthy practice of cooking their food. Correct, their ancestors stayed in the forest with the fruit and adapted to that diet. Our ancestors ventured away from the forest and adapted to a lifestyle and diet that partly involved eating meat. As I pointed out in my first post, our brains increased in size, because we ate meat. Chimps brains have not increased, because they eat less meat. They didn't have the selective pressures our ancestors did to figure shit out. My head spun when, in the appendix to this paper, Dehmelt proposes a sample meal plan. Here ya go: STEAK TARTAR - 8 MEALS FOR 4 DAYS 250g-ground grass fed bison, Round Cut Egg yolks 4, raw Flaxseed 5T ground + 5T Flax husks Sharp onions 250g chopped Salt 2t Coriander 2t Vitamin D 4000 I.U Mix all in slowly rotating mixer and store meals in refrigerator If this ain't omnivorous, you don't know what omnivorous means.

There is evidence that Australopiths butchered carcasses that they scavenged. I don't understand the objection to including scavenged meat as a legitimate part of an omnivorous diet. Hominids and pre-hominids have eaten meat in this manner for millions of years. It figures prominently in anthropological theory. Likewise, the objection to viewing tools as a legitimate way to obtain food. The hominid brain is the anatomical equivalent to tiger claws. Both allow the animal an advantage in the pursuit of survival. The brain counts, so, tools count. As for teeth, hominids developed smaller molars as their diet changed from one of low-energy plants to higher-energy sources like meat and fruit. Chimps show the same dental progression. And, yes, chimps eat meat.

Brand new Morrissey song! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE4xnw8KRfk World peace is none of your business You must not tamper with arrangements Work hard and sweetly pay your taxes Never asking what for Oh oh, you poor little fool World peace is none of your business Police will stun you with their stun guns Or they'll disable you with tasers That's what Government's for Oh oh, you poor little fool World peace is none of your business So would you, kindly keep your nose out The rich must profit and get richer And the poor must stay poor Oh oh, you poor little fool Each time you vote, you support the process Each time you vote, you support the process Each time you vote, you support the process Brazil, Bahrain, Egypt, Ukraine So many people in pain No more you poor little fools No more you fool

I don't think there is any difference in the three meanings of ownership you gave. There is a difference in the consequences of owning a physical object and owning an action. Physical objects can be transferred to others, or a claim can be made by others and some decision reached as to physical ownership. Actions (painting, speech, murder) cannot be transferred. An action is an instance or a collection of instances in time that cannot be exchanged. They are permanently in the past and permanently owned by the actor. The painter painted the painting. The painter owns the act of painting the painting. The painter cannot change this. The ex-wife of the painter cannot change this. Judge Judy cannot change this. The buyer of the painting cannot change this. Only the painter will ever own the act of painting the painting. The ownership of that act affords the painter some say in the physical painting, but certainly doesn't absolutely determine its fate as the painter's under every circumstance. The ex-wife can make a claim for various reasons. Judge Judy can award it as payment for some debt. Or the painter can sell it or give it to someone. None of these actions change the fact that the painter owns the act of painting the painting.So. There is some contradiction if the painter argues that he does not own the effects of his painting. The effects extend beyond the physical painting. The painter gained experience from the painting. The painter gained reputation, good or bad, from the painting. If he sells it, he owns the money from his act of painting. Etc, etc, etc.One adds/subtracts value to the physical world using willpower and labor. The positive/negative effects of one's actions are ultimately owned by one, i.e. one is responsible for one's actions. Whether or not one's actions are justly attributed to one is a whole 'nother matter.

Add me, por favor. skype: chiefcuster

Nah, you had no choice.

I'm not going to hold your hand through this. Do a search. It's been debunked. If those outlets can't convince you, then I certainly won't be able to either. Good luck.

You use them every time you rephrase someone's argument incorrectly and then argue against that incorrect interpretation. You did it in this very post. Unfortunately, I did watch the starchild skull video. It's not proof or a rebuttal of anything. It's a combination of assertions without proof and misinterpretation of DNA tests. Yet, you have the gall to tell me I should be careful what sources I trust. For fuck's sake, man (or woman or alien.)

My point was that ET's are oddly absent from everyday life on Earth and I don't see why this should be so, if they have knowledge that could be of use to us. Have you talked to an ET recently? Have you seen them strolling (hovering?) through the park? Do they go on TV and share their knowledge with anyone? Lights in the sky do not answer the question of why, if they exist, are ET's being so evasive? Bats are not blind. Seriously, you might want to be skeptical of your skepticism. A simple google search on any of the issues you raise will bring up multiple sources of information that would clear up the gaps you're currently filling in with X-files episodes. You might also look up "straw man argument", as you've used it repeatedly.

The "starchild skull" wiki puts that one to rest. There are 6 billion cell phone users worldwide. I assume many billions of them have decent quality cameras. Shouldn't there be overwhelming evidence of our alien mothers by now? Point me in the direction of "major UFO siting". "They started creating simple life then over time they created more and more complex life as they got better at creating life. They reuse common DNA sequences for different organisms because it is more efficient that way. This explains the fossil record and similar DNA. They wouldn't have to go out of their way to make evolution convincing. Observable evidence is perfectly explained without evolution, but people can't see this because they only look at things from an evolutionary viewpoint." Let's rewrite this paragraph. Evolution started creating simple life, then over time it created more and more complex life as it got better at creating life. It reuses common DNA sequences for different organisms, because it is more efficient that way. This explains the fossil record and similar DNA. Evolution is convincing. Observable evidence is simply explained by evolution, but some people can't see this, because they like sci-fi and/or God. That's much more accurate and likely. Your ET technological advancement points are more sci-fi dreaming. There's no actual evidence of such things. That something could be true does not mean that we have any reason to believe that it is true. Evolution has evidence: a transitional fossil record that corresponds to a timeline, mechanisms that explain the process, biochemical markers that act as another timeline, etc. Plus, it's not that complicated. If you accept that you are the result of the recombination of your mother and father's DNA, then you accept evolution. Why would you accept that evolution might occur on a different planet, but not on Earth? It seems like you want to go out of your way to accept the most convoluted scenarios possible. You "just don't see the evidence that evolution explains life here on Earth"!? Read! It's there. Evidence is not really what you're interested in, though. You want a good story with mysterious overbeings who for no known reason would want to populate Earth and then abandon it.

The extraterrestrial hypothesis only pushes the question back to explaining the origin of those extraterrestrials. As creators, wouldn't ET's just be a slightly less perfect God? They would need close to perfect knowledge about the universe to find Earth, create it's climate, and the array of life present now. I mean, without evolution, you are left with a massive intergalactic Noah's ark situation. Every variant of life, in proper population ratios, would need to be transported to and delicately smeared across an Earth surface that had been prepared for such, and then babied wholesale to make sure it took. On top of that, just like God, the ET's would deem it necessary to plant a lot of false evidence of evolution. Also, just like God, they're apparently invisible or at least, not making themselves known to the masses. Why would that be a wise thing to do? What is the physical evidence of ET's?

Okay, you settled that one. You show no desire to do anything other than provoke. Good luck.

The only valid point about the voting, I see, is that posts are hidden at a certain level. That feature, unfortunately, serves to rile people up. It's led to this thread which is mostly a waste of time. The posts are still being read, since they continue to pile up downvotes. Perhaps, the hide feature should be abandoned, but once a user accumulates a certain number of negative votes the moderators then make a determination about that user's participation, i.e. are they breaking forum rules or are they simply being disagreed with. Maybe this is being done already. Other than that, I have no problem with the display of reputation. It's useful information. The suggestion to require an explanation would squelch a lot of readers' votes and would lead to more threads like this one, not fewer. freemankind, I haven't voted you down in either thread. I agree with almost nothing you've said. But you are skirting my personal threshold for civility. Are you trolling? I don't know. I've given you the benefit of a doubt, so far. Others have not. I have no problem with that. Perhaps, you could suggest solutions to the concerns you have, instead of only offering criticism and arguing over semantics.