Kelly Thomas

Tonight on The Independents: The Father of Kelly Thomas Speaks Out, Obama's Executive Orders, Bieber's "Molly" Problem, TV Teen Moms, Coinye West, and More!

|

I honestly can't take seeing that other picture any more. |||

Because of pre-emption by live event coverage, tonight's episode of The Independents will first air at midnight ET instead of 9 PM on Fox Business Network. The show will mix pop culture banter with the heaviest of heavy topics, the latter including yesterday's not-guilty verdict of the Fullerton cops who beat the homeless and schizophrenic man Kelly Thomas to death in 2011. Thomas' father Ron—who Kelly was desperately crying out for on the infuriating, heartbreaking video of his fatal beating—will be on the show to discuss his reaction to the verdict. Read Reason's coverage of the case at this link.

Also up for discussion: President Barack Obama promises/threatens a flurry of Congress-bypassing executive orders, which some might say contradict his criticism of executive power back before he was president. And New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie tries to put the bridge scandal behind him in his State of the State Address. Addressing both will be New Jersey Republican type Bill Spadea and 52 Reasons to Vote for Obama author Bernard Whitman.

Or not. |||

In teenagers-misbehaving news, nosediving heartthrob Justin Bieber had his house ransacked by cops who reportedly found an ecstasy variant called "Molly" while investigating, um, a potentially $20,000 egg-tossing incident; also, new study proves* that MTV's 16 and Pregnant leads to fewer teen births. Plus: The Pope auctions his Harley, Kanye West sues the Bitcoin-inspired "Coinye West" out of existence, and more.

Again—tune in at midnight ET for the assembled Independentsage. And heckle what you see on Twitter at @IndependentsFBN

* Ancient Internet joke.

NEXT: NSA Review Panel Challenges Value of Bulk Metadata Collection

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Reposted for more exposure:

    Fullerton PD officer wants his job back

    City officials have said confidentiality laws forbid them from discussing details of Cicinelli’s employment or whether he left the department because he was fired.

    “I was wrongfully terminated. How do you argue with a jury of 12 who all agree on the same thing?” he said. “They sat through the whole trial and heard all the facts.”

    He also cited the trial testimony of Fullerton Cpl. Stephen Rubio, his training officer, who testified that Cicinelli’s actions during the struggle with Thomas were within department policy.
    If legal channels to get his job back are unsuccessful, Cicinelli is unclear on other options.

    “I just have to see where this takes me,” he said. “It’s like starting over. ? My whole life has been stopped.”

    The husband and father of three also said he understands some of the anger and protesting that have erupted after the verdict.
    He also understands the anger expressed by Ron Thomas, Kelly Thomas’ father.

    “I understand where he is coming from,” Cicinelli said. “I’m a father.”
    Cicinelli said he has also received dozens of texts from supporters, including many Fullerton police officers.

    Hasn’t the man been through enough? They should just give him a big fat disability pension for the emotional trauma of killing a man in the line of duty.

    1. You know who else’s whole life was stopped?

      1. The other cops who were on trial too?

      2. Francisco Franco!

        1. Morgan Freeman?

    2. Another one? On top of the one he gets from the LAPD for losing the eye?

      I know it sounds like a sweet deal, but just think, the next time he ‘Smashes somebody’s face to hell’, he could get arrested /Lt. Drebin

    3. Wow, 4 hours of John proving he doesn’t understand evolution and shitting on threads, what an enormous asshole.

      Skip the first third of this thread to avoid his stupidity in this thread, get Reasonable and Chrome to avoid it forever.

      1. I’d rather read John’s comments, even when he’s wrong, than any of yours. Please provide us with all your handles so we can block you, you chickenshit asshole.

    4. “It’s like starting over. ? My whole life has been stopped.”

      If only…

  2. Damnit I want to continue John’s evolution discussion but Reason keeps adding stories!!!

    1. The longer that thread goes, the longer the next evolution thread will be once it is posted.

      1. Where is it? I just wasted over half an hour “clearing some cop’s name” over on the e-cig thread. Got sidetracked by the Dog Suicide Bridge in Scotland Fucking Google.

        1. P.M. Links

          1. I see John is on a roll.

            1. He doesn’t understand evolution. As far as I can tell, he thinks evolution only makes sense if a mutation is completely advantageous.

              His idea that consciousness could not have been the result of evolution because sometimes people kill their children is one of the strangest arguments I’ve ever heard.

              1. I started trying to follow that one but the whole thing seemed pointless. Couldn’t say if he was being willfuly obstinate or just mentally stuck on a false point. I couldn’t care enough what one person thinks to try to change him, much less read about it.

                1. When it comes to John and God and evolution, “pointless” is a mild way to put it. Him not understanding evolution doesn’t help.

                  1. Yeah, when a discussion goes a dozen+ comments with viable opposing points I will read them. But when one side of the “discussion” is simply like a cart with one wheel gone, going round and round with no hope of progress – meh…

                    1. The problem Tjicano is that you didn’t understand the argument. There was plenty of back in forth. I don’t know what to do for you. If you can’t understand the difference between behavior that is compelled via something’s nature and behavior that is chosen via free will, then you are unlikely to understand the issues with evolutionary fairy tail making.

                    2. John, my point is that I don’t care if you don’t understand what seems obvious to everybody else.

                    3. And my point is, if you are too stupid to see the obvious problems with this and just think “everyone else thinks this and it does have the magic words in it”, you are fucking moron.

                      I don’t care what creation myths you tell yourself. If you want to believe that you do certain things because evolution told you, have fun. Just don’t call it science.

                      I don’t know where consciousness came from or even for sure if we have free will or if those questions are even answerable. Until I get answers to those questions, I will avoid telling myself myths about prehistoric man on the plains of Africa.

                    4. OK John, just for you.

                      I believe there may be some slight merit to some of their ideas but fully doubt there will ever be enough real evidence to prove most of what they say. The ideas are interesting and seem to point to things which could make some sense – but we will never know for certain.

                      I don’t call it science but that doesn’t mean the ideas they put forth are not worth discussing. The posts I scanned on that thread mostly seemed to follow what I’m saying here.

                      Don’t bother replying – I have a lunch meeting and will be out the rest of the day.

                    5. but we will never know for certain.

                      Then it is a fairy tail and you agree with me. Thanks.

                  2. I understand evolution fine. The debate was not about evolution. It was about evolutionary psychology with is the worst sort of junk science. Never once did I deny evolution. In fact I didn’t even deny the possibility that it explains our behavior. My point is that if it does, then we do not have free will or moral agency anymore than animals do.

                    There is nothing scientific about evolutionary psycology. It can’t explain behavior, it doesn’t understand consciousness and it can’t explain the variations in behavior and every one of the believers in this crap I have ever met are convinced that we still have free will, as if I can act compelled by my genes on months with an R and not the rest fo the time.

                    The discussion had nothing to do with God or creation or anything else. it was about consciousness and our understanding of it and what it means to be “science” versus bullshit. People only assumed it was about God because they are half wits who see magic words like “evolution” and think anyone who dissents to such must be talking about God.

                    1. You are dead right on evopsych. That shit doesn’t even rise to the level of psuedoscience.

                    2. Thanks SIV.

                      I am really surprised and disappointed so many people on here buy into it.

                    3. You are dead right on evopsych. That shit doesn’t even rise to the level of psuedoscience.

                      eerr

                      Depends what you want to call evopsych.

                      Things like our ability to acquire language and face recognition are definitely genetic and specific genes can be traced to them. Also lots of things can happen to a human brain (damage) which can effect a person’s behavior (freewill, consciousness) and those brain structures can be traced to specific genes.

                    4. Things like our ability to acquire language and face recognition are definitely genetic and specific genes can be traced to them.

                      But those are abilities that every genetically normal person has. That is not “psychology” that is really more neuroscience. Whatever you want to call it, innate abilities that we are born with and just can do, is not free will or consciousness anymore than an ability to walk on two legs is.

              2. I typically enjoy John’s comments but that whole argument was silly.

              3. Strange (disadvantageous) behavior can be explained simply enough. We’ve become intelligent enough to game our biological feedback systems. Much like a rat that will shock itself to get some cocaine, humans find various and innumerable ways to stimulate their dopamine receptors. Most of which have more to do with habit than anything else.

                1. Sure they can Scruffy. We game things because we have a free will. If we have a free will, then who gives a fuck what evolution has to say about our behavior? Our behavior is the result of our choices not our evolution. If it is the result of our evolution, then we are not making choices. A lion doesn’t choose to hunt antelope. That is an example of behavior produced by evolution. There isn’t any free will involved.

                  So stop talking about evolution and free will. You can’t have both.

                  1. “So stop talking about evolution and free will. You can’t have both.”

                    Ding! Ding!
                    John, you’re a laugh a minute.

                    1. Sevo,

                      Tell me how you can have both? You only laugh because you have no answer and apparently have never thought about the subject deeply enough to realize there isn’t one.

                    2. John|1.14.14 @ 9:23PM|#
                      “Sevo,
                      Tell me how you can have both? You only laugh because you have no answer and apparently have never thought about the subject deeply enough to realize there isn’t one.”

                      We have false dichotomy followed by an accusation of ‘not thinking deeply’ from one who fancies there to be a sky daddy!
                      John, you’re on a roll!

                    3. Yeah Sevo, just start throwing out words. I am sure their magic power will win the day. There is nothing false about it. If I can ignore my evolutionary urges, then they don’t control or really explain my behavior. If I can’t, then I don’t have free will. There is no getting around that no matter how many times you speak the magic spell of “evolution”.

                    4. John|1.14.14 @ 9:45PM|#
                      “Yeah Sevo, just start throwing out words. I am sure their magic power will win the day.”

                      Yeah, words, John; they don’t mean anything.
                      You have a problem. Your entire ‘argument; such as it is, is based on the fantasy of a sky-daddy. A mythical character for which there has never been one shred of evidence.
                      So you see, John, you’re in the wonderful position of arguing math when your base premise is that 1+1=3.
                      Now, maybe I’m wrong, John. All you need to do is that no one has ever done; provide PROOF for your fantasy.
                      That’s all, just show that 1+1=3, and your home free!

                    5. My dog ignores her evolutionary urges, since she knows that she’ll get punished for barking at night and get rewarded for not attacking her food bowl until we tell her it’s OK.

                      I haven’t waded into the morass since I found out some time ago that this is a major blind spot of yours and it was useless to do so, but I’ll just remark that a dichotomy consisting of one science term (evolution) versus one philosophy term (free will) doesn’t even rise to the level of false.

                    6. Your problem, John, is that you think that free will and determinism are incompatible. They are not.

                    7. Why on earth would an otherwise intelligent person belive bullshit “men like women with large hips because they breed well”? There is no evidence of that. It is taking an anecdotal sometimes true observation and projecting into some large truth by making up a story. That is it.

                      You can’t point to a gene or some physical adaptation that caused that. You can’t point to a mutation that causes other people not to do that. You can’t point to anything other than “well this sounds good”. And you call that science? Really? That is retarded.

                    8. john, there’s a fairly large body of evidence coming in that shows the we *don’t have much free-will – at least as far as the ‘conscious’ (the self-aware part) of the brain is concerned.

                      Did you decide to type that post, or did your unconscious mind, acting on pre-programmed impulses, decide to type it and your conscious mind is just justifying it after the fact?

                      Again though – don’t confuse evolutionary *psychology* as part of mainstream evolutionary theory. Most realize its just reaching in the dark.

                      On the other hand – the theory that self-awareness arose through evolutionary processes has a strong descriptive power and doesn’t require you to postulate *other* entities to explain it.

                      Right now, its the best one we got.

                    9. Again though – don’t confuse evolutionary *psychology* as part of mainstream evolutionary theory. Most realize its just reaching in the dark.

                      I am not at all. I think it is utter horse shit and does not belong with mainstream evolutionary theory. It is everyone else who is confusing the two by accusing me of denying mainstream evolutionary theory because I deny evolutionary psychology. Most of the people on this board see the word “evolution” and have a faith based reaction that whatever is associated with it must be good science. I don’t.

                    10. Except, what mechanism is there for the development of new features in an organism?

                      Unless you’re advocating some sort of material dualism, there *is* no spirit. As such, consciousness *has* to arise from the structures of the brain.

                      Without invoking a spirit world, there is no other explanation.

                    11. On the other hand – the theory that self-awareness arose through evolutionary processes has a strong descriptive power and doesn’t require you to postulate *other* entities to explain it.

                      It doesn’t’ describe anything. None of this describes consciousness. It just makes up a story about why it might be as it is. If the best you can do is, “well this is one way of describing things without appealing to God,” you haven’t done anything but make up a story. You know what else doesn’t appeal to God? Saying we don’t know. How about that?

                      Did you decide to type that post, or did your unconscious mind, acting on pre-programmed impulses, decide to type it and your conscious mind is just justifying it after the fact?

                      If it is the later, then I am not responsible for it. I am not really even an I but instead just some collection of impulses. That may be true. Who knows. But if it is, we will never be able to verify it. I don’t act on every impulse. How do I know which ones are uncontrollable other than them being the ones I acted upon? I don’t.

                      What we are left with is we are probably never going to understand consciousness if for no other reason than all of our perceptions of it come through our own consciousness. Think about it. If my actions are just the results of various impulses, then there is no me, just a collection of impulses. Maybe so, but I don’t see how we could ever break through the illusion of there being an I to fully realize or prove that.

                    12. So, the wonderful thing about John posting so copiously every day is that he inadvertently outs himself as a moron, and thinks he’s winning something.

                      So, those of you who didn’t know that about him before today, you’ve learned your lesson.

                    13. Tell yourself that 904CC. Whatever it is, it couldn’t be that you are a moron. No. it must be that SIV and me and Micheal Langston and a lot of other people are morons.

                      Here is a hint, if you have to rely on a false sense of smugness, you mostly likely are the moron.

                    14. Here is a hint, if you have to rely on a false sense of smugness, you mostly likely are the moron.

                      Awesome, no worries for me then.

                    15. Awesome, no worries for me then

                      Since you have probably been a moron since birth, I doubt it is a problem for you. So yeah, no worries.

                      Get back on your meds Mary

                    16. Get back on your meds Mary

                      Says the asshole shitting on threads left and right, all day long.

                    17. Breathing. Free will (conscious) or involuntary (evolutionary)?

                      Obviously both.

                      Everything about every species is either random or has been derived from natural selection. Everything.

                    18. Big T.

                      If my behavior is “random”, I don’t have a will. If my behavior is derived from natural selection, I have no control over it.

                      You can’t call free will “random”. More importantly, even if you do, since I can ignore any impulse I choose to, all of my behavior is random. So what exactly does natural selection explain?

                      What proof do you have that any given behavior is natural selection or random or whatever you want to call it? if you can’t tell me which behavior is which, then you haven’t explained anything. You have made up a fairy tail to tell yourself.

                    19. Think about it. If my actions are just the results of various impulses, then there is no me, just a collection of impulses.

                      This sounds extremely likely to me. Our actions are produced by our thoughts, our thoughts are nothing but electrochemical reactions in our brain, these reactions are nothing but the collisions of particles, these particles move on trajectories produced by other collisions which were produced by other collisions et cetera back until the Big Bang or Prime Mover or Creation, whichever you prefer. Meaning that consciousness is an illusion, free will is a fairy tale, and every action we’ll ever take was predetermined at the beginning of time. What I don’t understand is why that idea bothers people.

                      Also, of course free will and a deterministic universe can’t coexist, but I don’t understand why you’re conflating evolution and a deterministic universe. Evolution would still happen even with an interventionist god.

                    20. Also, of course free will and a deterministic universe can’t coexist, but I don’t understand why you’re conflating evolution and a deterministic universe.

                      I am not. I am just saying you can’t have evolutionary explanations of behavior and free will both.

                      eaning that consciousness is an illusion, free will is a fairy tale, and every action we’ll ever take was predetermined at the beginning of time. What I don’t understand is why that idea bothers people.

                      Because it means at best we are robots and at worst we don’t exist. Beyond that, it seems like we have free will. Again, it may be an illusion. But it seems to me that it is going to take some really definitive evidence to disregard our experience. It is possible sure. But I is not certain and experience at least contradicts it.

                    21. It’s not deterministic at the quantum level. It’s only probabilistic.

                    22. Technically, we live in a semi-deterministic universe. Your actions are determined by a single, spectacularly complex Markov chain Monte Carlo trial whose outcome cannot be predicted in advance.

                      I can’t decide if that qualifies as free will or not, mostly because free will is a poorly defined concept for us monists.

                      John is a dualist, which is why he thinks we’re idiots. (That and his complete inability to reason from someone else’s priors)

                    23. Never say never, but as long as Heisenberg remains descriptive then there will always be some uncertainty, by definition. How much that impacts consciousness and self is TBD. Then again if QED ever becomes purely deterministic it’s either time to get depressed or invoke some mystical soul that we never seem able to find.

                      As to your earlier point about either having free will or having evolutionary impulses consider a pair of loaded dice. The random factor represents your free will, but the evolutionary factor biases the outcome. I don’t see why that can’t apply to our consciousness.

                      The chinese box/tent problem never impressed me because it’s literally impossible to falsify one way or the other.

                    24. The random factor represents your free will, but the evolutionary factor biases the outcome.

                      How? What does it mean to “bias the outcome”? You either control it or you don’t. You could say evolution controls our desires. Maybe. But if it does, then I would expect to see a physical explanation of such. And by that I mean, “this gene or this biological process causes people to like or desire X”. Without the physical explanation, it is just story telling again.

                    25. Are you serious? Humans only have 4 tastes: sweet, sour, bitter, and salt. Why? Because sweet indicates energy, salt is a necessary electrolyte, and sour and bitter have correlations to poisons. We LIKE sweet and our behavior changes in response to sweet foods. Same with salt. Do I still control myself? Sure. But can I crave these tastes and alter my behavior to get them? Hell yes.

                    26. But can I crave these tastes and alter my behavior to get them? Hell yes.

                      So you can choose to do or not do things you like. Okay, what is this “you” and how exactly is its choices explained by evolution?

                      Beyond that, some people like sweet, some hate it. What is the process of natural selection that produced that variation? Not some fairy tail. But the gene that some people had and passed on to future generations that caused it. Without that information, you are just bullshiting.

                    27. Your argument is asinine. You expect me to show you every single allele attributed to taste? Why? That’s akin to demanding “missing links” for EVERY species between humans and single-celled organisms. OR IT DIDN’T HAPPEN!

                      Yes, some like sweet and some don’t. Mutation is a wonderful thing. Given our obese society it wouldn’t surprise me that evolution would start putting selective pressure on our craving for energy given that we are no longer starving hunter gatherers.

                      You don’t like sweet? Fine. Salt. And no, I’m not talking everyone sucking on a salt lick, but salt pretty much is a universal craving. Are you seriously suggesting that evolution played no role in that? Really?

                    28. You expect me to show you every single allele attributed to taste? Why?

                      Because you are the one telling me you have an explanation. Forget every one. How about one? You can’t give a single example.

                      ut salt pretty much is a universal craving. ?

                      Nothing says science like pretty much. Some people hate salt. Can you point to a evolutionary reason why? No, you can tell me a fairy tail.

                    29. Then again if QED ever becomes purely deterministic

                      I should have mentioned that I suspect that’s the case.

                    30. I try not to think about that. It’s depressing. Probably explains Tony’s bliss.

                    31. Why, though? I find the idea comforting in an unsettling way, kind of like your mom’s vag.

                    32. She’s only got one boob though. Unless you like the fake one too…

                      I find it depressing for the same reason that I’m a Libertarian: I value my individualism. If the universe is purely deterministic then I’m not really an individual and shit stain collectivists better explain the universe. I find that unappealing.

                    33. Skippy: “Never say never, but as long as Heisenberg remains descriptive then there will always be some uncertainty, by definition. ”

                      Exactly. All motion is probabilistic, so it can never be deterministic on an individual particle basis.

                      Determinism vs free will is a classic argument, debated more elegantly elsewhere. But I’ve never heard a good argument against the statistical quantum mechanical underpinning of nature.

                    34. But I’ve never heard a good argument against the statistical quantum mechanical underpinning of nature.

                      That is because there isn’t one or if there is, no one has figured it out yet. But just because the quantum world is random, doesn’t mean our thoughts are or our behavior is. Maybe I guess.

                    35. Many worlds sorta does this. Every possible outcome does occur. So the multiverse is deterministic, but selecting any single universe still gives you a random result. If you flip a coin, and it comes up heads in “this” universe and by definition tails in the “other” universe, would you still consider that random?

                    36. If there was a visible effect of quantum randomness at the cellular level we couldn’t survive — there are millions of chemical reactions going on in your body at any given time and the body depends on all of them happening in a predictable fashion.

                    37. Essentially no events above the scale of an atom involve individual particles, though. The law of large numbers takes over and you get determinism. So the quantum randomness has essentially zero effect on our brain function.

                    38. The chinese box/tent problem never impressed me because it’s literally impossible to falsify one way or the other.

                      That’s kinda the point.

                    39. But the argument is circular. I cannot distinguish the box from a native speaker, so can I tell that the box isn’t a native speaker? Well you’ve over constrained the problem.

                    40. It describe the *origin* of consciousness – it arises from the structures of the brain.

                      We don’t know from which, or how they work together to do this, but until a better theory comes along this is the one we’re going to work with.

                      Its like says we should have ignored Newton’s Gravitation because his theory wasn’t complete.

                      *He* couldn’t explain everything, but what he explained, he explained well. Gaps in observation lead to Einstein and gaps in Einstein are leading to better and better explanations.

                    41. Its like says we should have ignored Newton’s Gravitation because his theory wasn’t complete

                      For sure. But it predicted and explained a whole lot things. Evolutionary psyc in contrast doesn’t predict or explain anything.

                      Just because we don’t reject incomplete theories, doesn’t mean there isn’t such thing as bullshit.

                    42. Not to highjack this thread.. but

                      there’s a fairly large body of evidence coming in that shows the we *don’t have much free-will

                      I don’t think that’s true & I am one who actively researches things like these.

                      Can you point me to any specific studies?

                      & bear in mind, the fact the humans have instinctual type habits and behaviors, in no way subverts the idea of free will.

                      But if such studies exist – I’d like to read them.

                      Just seems like a large hurdle to cover since all anyone would need to do is find one instance of man behaving against said “brain” to refute any study.

                      Add the difficulty of proving this with knowledge that man can do things like, stop eating until they die… an act surely against normal instincts, I don’t know how one would even attempt to prove lack of free-will.

                      But please feel free to share if you have any specific studies – I am interested.

                    43. What Micheal said. It seems a bit of a reach that one could ever scientifically prove, one does not have free will. And certainly it goes against our experience. Sure, maybe our experience is an illusion. But it is going to take some pretty strong proof to overcome the evidence of experience.

                    44. Yeah, words, John; they don’t mean anything.
                      You have a problem. Your entire ‘argument; such as it is, is based on the fantasy of a sky-daddy. A mythical character for which there has never been one shred of evidence.
                      So you see, John, you’re in the wonderful position of arguing math when your base premise is that 1+1=3.
                      Now, maybe I’m wrong, John. All you need to do is that no one has ever done; provide PROOF for your fantasy.
                      That’s all, just show that 1+1=3, and your home free!

                    45. our entire ‘argument; such as it is, is based on the fantasy of a sky-daddy.

                      No it is not. It is based ont he fact that we don’t understand consciousness and can’t describe it much less explain its origins.

                      This is the best you have? Well you just believe in God? Really? What the fuck does God have to do with evolutionary psychology having no physical explanation for the fairy tails it tells or being incomparable with free will and moral agency?

                      Nothing. I guess it does have something in that belief in God and belief in evolutionary psychology are both faith based. So there is that.

                    46. John|1.14.14 @ 10:12PM|#
                      “This is the best you have?”

                      Not really, it’s just the one that has to be satisfied before any other, and you have no proof.
                      So, you’re in a hole; stop digging.

                    47. Not really, it’s just the one that has to be satisfied before any other, and you have no proof.

                      I can’t disprove your fairy tails. That is true. You have me there. I will tell you what I told the guy above. If you want to tell yourself myths about evolution making you do things, knock yourself out. Just please don’t call it science.

                    48. John|1.14.14 @ 10:23PM|#
                      “I can’t disprove your fairy tails.”

                      John, there is stupid, there is really stupid and then there’s that.
                      Yeah, asshole tell us about the skydaddy again.

                    49. “Why on earth would an otherwise intelligent person belive bullshit “men like women with large hips because they breed well”? ”

                      Women with wide hips have an easier child birth, which was a major cause of death in pre-industrial societies. Men who chose wide-hipped women thus bred more because the women survived to breed again, and had more offspring. Men who like wide-hipped women are chosen by natural selection.

                      If you can’t see that, you are an idiot.

                    50. Big T,

                      If you can show me a single fact in your statement, as opposed to a bunch of suppositions that you made up to explain an anecdotal observation, you are an idiot. You might as well tell yourself Zeus struck such men with a hammer blow of lust. It is about as scientific and about as convincing.

                      You offer no physical mechanism for this to occur other than a vague appeal to “genes”. You assume from the beginning that men who desired big asses desired so because of a genetic mutation that they could pass on, but you have no evidence of that. It is made up bullshit.

                    51. Women with wide hips have an easier child birth, FACT

                      which was a major cause of death in pre-industrial societies. FACT

                      Men who chose wide-hipped women thus bred more because the women survived to breed again, and had more offspring. FACT

                      Thus Men who like wide-hipped women are chosen by natural selection.

                      Just because we haven’t yet determined which genes code for various aspects of this particular item does not mean they don’t exist. We have found specific genes for many conditions and features in humans and in many other species. There are millions of genes and they interact in complex ways. We are very slowly learning the patterns.

                      “You assume from the beginning that men who desired big asses desired so because of a genetic mutation that they could pass on,”

                      Behavior has been tied to specific genes for a few human activities and many animal behaviors. I am merely extrapolating to this specific behavior, using a consistent basis.

                    52. Just because we haven’t yet determined which genes code for various aspects of this particular item does not mean they don’t exist.

                      Just because they haven’t found that unicorn doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Go find it and then talk to me. Otherwise you are just making up bullshit.

                    53. hus Men who like wide-hipped women are chosen by natural selection.

                      Only if there is a genetic cause to the behavior that can be passed on. You are assuming your argument.

                      Give it up. It is all faith based. Tell yourself any myth you like. But just stop calling it science.

                    54. I don’t know how one would even attempt to prove lack of free-will.

                      One can certainly prove that free-will is a material thing. Simply start cutting chunks out of a person brain until they stop making choices.

                      I think jumping from “freewill is a product of an organ in a person’s body” to “freewill is a product of an organ in a person’s body that evolved through natural selection” is not as big of a jump as John is claiming it is.

                    55. One can certainly prove that free-will is a material thing. Simply start cutting chunks out of a person brain until they stop making choices.

                      So what? That explain what it is or how it works. And without that knowledge, any attribution of its origins is pure conjecture.

                    56. And without that knowledge, any attribution of its origins is pure conjecture.

                      Well brains do exist among another animals and we can see how from more “primitive” (there really is not a better word then this) animals to more “advanced” (also a bad word) animals how brains evolved.

                      I mean we can see how cutting part of a chimps brain out can effect its behavior and see how similar that effect is when we do it with humans.

                      We can do it with rats and dogs and cats as well.

                      The brains of these animals are organs that evolved through natural selection. Why would a human brain which is very similar (though much bigger with areas that are much more developed and complex) not be a product of those same forces?

                    57. Maybe they are. I don’t know corning. But until you know what consciousness is, you have no way of know how those forces did that or even if they could. Okay, our consciousness was the result of some form of evolution. Big fucking deal. That explain anything about how that process worked or do anything to prove the various explanations for specific behaviors that evolutionary psych gives. Until you show me the gene that causes this or that behavior and how that gene was passed on by more successful people and thus became common or uniform in the human race, you have not told me anything other than a nice story that makes you feel good.

                    58. I think people ITT need to come to an understanding of what exactly constitutes “evolutionary psychology” and what is “mainstream evolutionary theory.” John, you say you’re simply arguing against evolutionary psychology, but many of the claims you’re making run contrary to mainstream evolutionary theory as well.

                    59. John, you say you’re simply arguing against evolutionary psychology, but many of the claims you’re making run contrary to mainstream evolutionary theory as well.

                      Since when does evolutionary theory make claims about free will in consciousness? I am not denying that the brain evolved. And I am not denying that perhaps certain mental abilities we have like face recognition are the result of natural selection. But none of that says anything about psychology or human behavior in the way evolutionary psych does.

                      I am not denying mainstream evolutionary theory.

                    60. I am not denying mainstream evolutionary theory.

                      Except that you’re positing *another* cause for consciousness. That’s pretty much denying a core tenant of mainstream evolutionary theory.

                    61. Except that you’re positing *another* cause for consciousness.

                      No I am not. I am saying we don’t know what consciousness even is and if it is the result of evolution, we have no way of understanding how that process worked and thus all of the bullshit put out by Eval Psych is just that, bullshit conjecture.

                      And no theory of any kind precludes all other explanation. All theories are forever, the best explanation we have for the data available. Science is never metaphysical certainty.

                    62. Except that you’re positing *another* cause for consciousness.

                      No I am not. I am saying we don’t know what consciousness even is and if it is the result of evolution, we have no way of understanding how that process worked and thus all of the bullshit put out by Eval Psych is just that, bullshit conjecture.

                      And no theory of any kind precludes all other explanation. All theories are forever, the best explanation we have for the data available. Science is never metaphysical certainty.

                    63. Except that you’re positing *another* cause for consciousness.

                      No I am not. I am saying we don’t know what consciousness even is and if it is the result of evolution, we have no way of understanding how that process worked and thus all of the bullshit put out by Eval Psych is just that, bullshit conjecture.

                      And no theory of any kind precludes all other explanation. All theories are forever, the best explanation we have for the data available. Science is never metaphysical certainty.

                    64. Except that you’re positing *another* cause for consciousness.

                      No I am not. I am saying we don’t know what consciousness even is and if it is the result of evolution, we have no way of understanding how that process worked and thus all of the bullshit put out by Eval Psych is just that, bullshit conjecture.

                      And no theory of any kind precludes all other explanation. All theories are forever, the best explanation we have for the data available. Science is never metaphysical certainty.

                    65. I think people ITT need to come to an understanding of what exactly constitutes “evolutionary psychology” and what is “mainstream evolutionary theory.”

                      Evolutionary psychology is a discipline that most proggies hate, and exists at most major research universities. And if proggies hate something that’s grown and thrived at universities, that thing must be bullshit.

                      Mainstream evolutionary theory is the Modern Synthesis, so call it that, assholes.

                    66. But until you know what consciousness is

                      I don’t know.

                      Read Dennet’s Consciousness Explained. I am not saying he is right only that it is a good place to start.

                      Note: I have not read it…only read parts of it. I got kind of pissed when he made a horrible argument about why the laffer curve is wrong (why is that even in there?)….that has made it difficult for me to read it entirely page by page.

                    67. doesn’t explain.

                    68. I think jumping from “freewill is a product of an organ in a person’s body” to “freewill is a product of an organ in a person’s body that evolved through natural selection” is not as big of a jump as John is claiming it is.

                      Unless he can come up with another entity to explain how it forms, because I know of no other mechanism than mutation and natural selection.

                    69. Unless he can come up with another entity to explain how it forms, because I know of no other mechanism than mutation and natural selection.

                      So what? Even if that is true, that doesn’t say anything about the validity of the bullshit put out by Eval Psych. Just because it is the product of natural selection, doesn’t mean we understand how that worked. In fact, we can’t understand that unless we understand what consciousness is.

                    70. John|1.14.14 @ 10:58PM|#
                      “So what? Even if that is true, that doesn’t say anything about the validity of the bullshit put out by Eval Psych. Just because it is the product of natural selection, doesn’t mean we understand how that worked. In fact,”

                      Yep, those goal posts are on wheels! Go John! Push them around! Accuse others of ‘fairy tales; when you’re pitching your sky daddy bullshit!
                      Go, John! Logic has never stood in your way yet; don’t let it now!
                      What an ignoramus.

                    71. Go fuck yourself SEVO. Evolutionary psyc is made up bullshit. The possibility that our brains and consciouness developed because of evolution doesn’t mean evolution explain our behaviors. Our brain is not the same as our behavior. it could be we evolved a free will and thus do things that cannot be explained by evolution other than that is what gave us the brain. So what? The existence of the brain is not psychology.

                      I don’t care if you want to believe in fairy tails. I just wish you would go join some cult or something. Anything but calling the bullshit you tell yourself “science”.

                    72. I’m not saying we have *no* free-will, only that it’s not 100%. There’s a question of how much of a ‘rational agent’ we really are.

                      Benjamin Libet did some work on this – where he showed that the decision to ready a limb for movement was made before the *conscious mind* decide to move the limb.

                    73. I’m not saying we have *no* free-will, only that it’s not 100%. There’s a question of how much of a ‘rational agent’ we really are.

                      The more fundamental question is how is it that I can sometimes have free will and other times not. How am I sometimes free to ignore my passions but other times lack the free will to do so. That seems a bit contradictory.

                    74. No, you get urges – you have enough intelligence to act on those urges appropriately, most of the time.

                      Sometimes, however, those urges overwhelm your rational mind.

                      How many guys have beat their wives because they couldn’t take anymore – I doubt most of them made a ‘conscious’ decision to do so, they fell into a rage and let go.

                      Free-will isn’t an all or nothing thing, there can be degrees of free-will, the limits of which are constrained by built in programming.

                    75. Again, not if you have a biased selector. Even better, a biased selector with hysteresis and memory. Most times I want to fuck a beautiful woman, but occasionally I’m not in the mood. Some of that may be influenced by recent history, e.g. I just ran a marathon and survival seems more appropriate than reproduction.

                      [insert obligatory warty reference here]

                    76. Skippy.

                      You are just describing human behavior. Okay, sometimes you like to do things. That doesn’t mean anything other than soemtimes you like to do things and sometimes you don’t.

                      You guys are just talking in circles assuming your conclusion. Can’t you see what nonsense that is?

                      Yeah we have desires and sometimes we act on them. We all kind of knew that. But that doesn’t explain why that is or in any way answer the question of do you have a choice in your actions.

                      Saying “well sometimes you do sometimes you don’t:” is not an answer. It is question begging. What is so special about the urges your can’t resist? You say you couldn’t resist your urge. I say you chose not to. Both explanations are just guesses.

                    77. *sigh* No. We actually do know a fair amount about how the brain works at the component level. We understand synapses pretty well. It’s clear that you don’t though because it goes straight to your question. We know that the conductivity of the junctions changes as a function of history (hence my point about hysteresis before). These junction are also not purely digital or binary as you wish your decisions to be. This is in fact how we learn and remember things (or at least a part of it). We also understand at least some of the chemistry of neurotransmitters. And we know that genes can impact the receptors and production levels of said transmitters. It’s entirely plausible that mutation and evolution produce differences in the levels of these transmitters and receptor which leads to differences in impulse behavior in individuals. So you can have BOTH free will and an evolutionary bias.

                      Seriously, just looking at how a neuron works versus a transistor I don’t know how anyone can expect human decision making to be intrinsically digital.

                    78. SIGH!!!@!

                      It’s entirely plausible that mutation and evolution produce differences in the levels of these transmitters and receptor which leads to differences in impulse behavior in individuals. So you can have BOTH free will and an evolutionary bias.

                      Sure it is possible. Don’t let the lack of evidence disuade you or anything.

                      but more importantly, sigh, if your behavior is the result of uncontrollable and random processes in your brain, you have no free will and there really isn’t a self in the conventional sense, just a collection of impulses. You are back to a deterministic universe as Warty describes above. Adding some probability doesn’t make it less deterministic for the purposes of free will. Randomness is no more free will than certainty.

                    79. *you’re* the one positing that all people’s brains are the same and we all have the same level of free-will – YOU are the one that needs to provide evidence for that claim.

                      Differences in brain structure and chemistry *may not* explain differences in people, but its the best theory we’ve got going right now.

                    80. John, you’re unique in describing a random process as deterministic. Congrats. And what is your precious free will self? You won’t allow it to be random, because that’s deterministic, and it’s can’t be deterministic, because that’s deterministic. Truly, I am overwhelmed by your brilliance.

                    81. And there can still be a self – you can be self-aware, ie aware of your existence and able to recognize yourself in a mirror and still be a bundle of impulses that the conscious self retor-actively assigns agency to.

                    82. “Again, not if you have a biased selector. Even better, a biased selector with hysteresis and memory. Most times I want to fuck a beautiful woman, but occasionally I’m not in the mood. Some of that may be influenced by recent history, e.g. I just ran a marathon and survival seems more appropriate than reproduction.”

                      The details are irrelevant. John is hoping someone misses on a detail.
                      Get him to prove 1+1=3 before you waste time proving his detail claims are bullshit.

                    83. Again, not if you have a biased selector.

                      That is so stupid as to make me laugh. We have this magic desire that is sometimes irresistible but other times not.

                      You don’t have shit. What you have is the simple observation that sometimes we do shit we like and other times we choose not too. You only think that proves something because you assume your creation myth about evolution telling you what to do.

                    84. John, your reply is truly pathetic. Your argument consists of, “tell me precisely what every electron in your brain is doing at all times or you haven’t proved anything!!!”

                      You’re the one who truly doesn’t have shit. “You can’t disprove free will, so nyah!”

                      I’m not claiming anything in particular. You’re the one who’s desperate to invoke some hidden soul, because, well, I don’t know. I’ve offered a mechanism where you can have both free will and a bias induced by evolutionary history. I guess you’re so in love with your Watchmaker that you find that threatening. I can’t help that, nor do I really care to.

                    85. Your argument consists of, “tell me precisely what every electron in your brain is doing at all times or you haven’t proved anything!!!”

                      No. My argument is that you have no explanation for our behaviors. You have conjecture that it must be the result of this or that desire or random neuron connection. You have no proof of that or any way to obtain such proof.

                      No you can’t help me. I don’t know that the fairy tails you tell yourself are untrue. But I can’t tell you that they are.

                      I’m not claiming anything in particular.

                      I am claiming that evolution psychology doesn’t explain our behaviors and is junk science consisting of feel good myths half wits like to tell themselves. That is pretty particular. You just don’t like it.

                      You’re the one who’s desperate to invoke some hidden soul, because, well, I don’t know.

                      Do me a favor and argue with me and not the voices in your head. I have never once argued for a soul on this thread. In fact I have admitted the possibility that the self is an illusion.

                      You need to do yourself a favor and stop assuming every argument is based in religion. I haven’t based any argument on theism or the soul or anything like that. I have just punched holes in your world view. You need to reevaluate your world view instead of worrying about mine. Mine being wrong, won’t make yours any better or less wrong.

                    86. Yes, its a *conjecture*, one that has a small body of observational data to back up.

                      Again – it may not be the best one (may not even be the right one), but its better than what you’ve got.

                    87. John, stop doing your best Luke Skywalker impression. Your delusions of grandeur are impressive only in that puddle of mush in your head.

                      What have you disproved? Did describe the functioning of a neuron incorrectly? Was I incorrect in describing that dopamine and seratonin levels differ in individuals?

                      How have you “punched holes in my world view?” Pro Tip: citing some actual evidence or mechanism is required to back an assertion. Just calling something bullshit ceased to be an effective argument with me a few decades ago.

                    88. What have you disproved? Did describe the functioning of a neuron incorrectly? Was I incorrect in describing that dopamine and seratonin levels differ in individuals?

                      I haven’t disproven anything. I have just pointed out that you have no proof or reason to believe anything you think about this other than it makes you feel good.

                      But hey, just post something about God and don’t let that bother you. It seems to work for SEVO.

                    89. I am claiming that evolution psychology doesn’t explain our behaviors and is junk science consisting of feel good myths half wits like to tell themselves. That is pretty particular. You just don’t like it.

                      Great, we’re all on the same page regarding evpsy.

                      However, to posit some mechanism other than evolution to explain the existence of the mind is something that *you* need to provide evidence for.

                      Evidence that contradicts what we *do* know about the workings of the brain.

                    90. However, to posit some mechanism other than evolution to explain the existence of the mind is something that *you* need to provide evidence for.

                      The existence of the mind and our behavior are two different things. It could be that evolution created our minds and our minds now behave on their own with no regard to evolution.

                    91. Well, what’s your creation myth – you posit some mythical entity to explain consciousness which you can’t provide *any* details on.

                      You’re positing an un-falsifiable hypothesis.

                    92. Well, what’s your creation myth – you posit some mythical entity to explain consciousness which you can’t provide *any* details on.

                      I don’t have one. But even if I did, I wouldn’t call it science. Have whatever myth you like. Just don’t pretend it is not a myth.

                    93. “You’re positing an un-falsifiable hypothesis.”

                      We like to call that religion. Or global warming. Same thing.

                    94. We like to call that religion. Or global warming. Same thing.

                      Says the person who thinks that fairy tails about reproduction explain behavior. Projection is strong here.

                    95. John is hoping someone misses on a detail.
                      Get him to prove 1+1=3 before you waste time proving his detail claims are bullshit.

                      I don’t think John thinks his claims are bullshit. He is not trying to trick anyone. I like this discussion and the stakes are very very small (oh no someone might believe something different about consciousness then do. oooh the horror!!!) so lay off.

                    96. The marathon *was* running from Warty – he’s tenacious.

                    97. But he wants my mom, so I’m safe.

                    98. How am I sometimes free to ignore my passions but other times lack the free will to do so.

                      Well your cerebral cortex (where i think consciousness and freewill resides) has to pass messages through the more primitive reptilian part of your brain to the rest of your body.

                      Sometimes the reptilian part lets stuff through…sometimes not.

                    99. Well your cerebral cortex (where i think consciousness and freewill resides) has to pass messages through the more primitive reptilian part of your brain to the rest of your body.

                      Which is about as scientific an explanation as attributing it to humors. My cortex is just like yours. Yet somehow I have different impulse control. No one can explain why. It just is.

                    100. Do you seriously think that *everyone* has the same level of control over their actions?

                      That someone with a genetic predisposition to, say, alcohol, just needs to buck up? That a craving for alcohol by an alcoholic can always be overcome by that person’s will alone?

                    101. Work that gay away…

                    102. Do you seriously think that *everyone* has the same level of control over their actions?

                      No. I think just the opposite. But if we all were robots whose behaviors were the result of our evolution, we would or be pretty close to uniform. We are of course nothing of the sort. And that is pretty hard to explain via a mechanistic explanation.

                    103. Uniform? Like black people and white people? I mean you can talk about how the genetic differences between blacks and whites are less than this or that but those small changes have some pretty noticeable effects on appearance.

                      Like Down’s Syndrome sufferers?

                      I mean the only difference between me and one of them is by an extra chromosome – if the mind doesn’t arrive from the structures of the brain then DS sufferers should have normal intelligence.

                      There are huge variations in behavior among humans – its hard to think that its all down to conscious choice.

                    104. There are huge variations in behavior among humans – its hard to think that its all down to conscious choice.

                      If you can choose not to do it, then it is a conscious choice. If you can’t, then it isn’t. It is really that simple.

                    105. My point is, there are things you can’t choose to not do.

                      Not everything, but *some* things.

                    106. here are things you can’t choose to not do.

                      And those things would be? Breathing I guess. But I am hard pressed to come up with more. You say I can’t choose not to. I say you can. How do we know who is right?

                    107. But if we all were robots whose behaviors were the result of our evolution, we would or be pretty close to uniform.

                      If somebody murders John in the next few minutes, forget you ever heard of internet commenter Sidd Finch.

                    108. That a craving for alcohol by an alcoholic can always be overcome by that person’s will alone?

                      Some people do and some don’t. They clearly can be overcome. So there is something going on there besides some uniform genetic desire.

                    109. Exactly – yet if there was no genetic influence on behavior – there would be no differences between those who kick the bottle on their own, those who need help, and those who don’t.

                    110. Exactly – yet if there was no genetic influence on behavior – there would be no differences between those who kick the bottle on their own, those who need help, and those who don’t.

                      Sure there is a difference. And maybe it is genes. But you have no proof of that. You are just assuming it must be genes or evolution. That is just the story you tell yourself. You have no proof that it is true. It is conjecture.

                    111. I know I have no *proof* of that. I have a hypothesis and some observational evidence.

                      *You* don’t even have a hypothesis.

                      I swear John – you are using the *exact* same argument that creationists use – evolution can’t explain *everything so it *must be something else.

                      The creationists at least have the good grace to formulate a hypothesis that can be tested.

                      *You are making a claim, a claim that is in contradiction to currently established theory – provide *some* mechanism that can be tested.

                    112. I have a hypothesis and some observational evidence.

                      Unless you have found a way to get in someone’s head and experience their thoughts, you don’t have a single piece of observational evidence. You have observations that you assume are evidence because you assume your conclusion.

                    113. Well, here’s some of my premises

                      That I am conscious
                      That all humans are conscious

                      My observational evidence is a whole slew of medical data showing that humans exhibit changes in behavior and other abilities when the brain is injured.

                      Again, if mind doesn’t arise from the structures of the brain then by what mechanism would you explain the above?

                      You are positing a new entity, DESCRIBE IT so that we may test your idea.

                    114. My observational evidence is a whole slew of medical data showing that humans exhibit changes in behavior and other abilities when the brain is injured.

                      That just means your consciousness is the product of your brain. So what? That doesn’t say anything about evolutionary psych.

                      Why do you think I am arguing for some supernatural consciousness? I am just saying evolution doesn’t explain our behavior.

                    115. Why do you think I am arguing for some supernatural consciousness? I am just saying evolution doesn’t explain our behavior.

                      In broad strokes, it does. If someone is going to point to some particular evolutionary advantage to a specific behavior, they are idiots.

                      But, even free-will IS A PRODUCT OF EVOLUTION.

                    116. Or fetal alcohol syndrome or insufficient folic acid during neural tubule development. Clearly the brain can be affected by relatively small external stimuli, and we know that there are natural variations in neural development and neurochemistry which do have genetic components.

                    117. So do victims of such syndrome lack free will?

                      We can’t answer these questions. That is my entire point. We don’t even understand what the self is. That is why evolutionary psych is such made up bullshit.

                    118. http://www.health.harvard.edu/…..tion-brain

                      Studies have shown that addictive drugs stimulate a reward circuit in the brain. The circuit provides incentives for action by registering the value of important experiences. Rewarding experiences trigger the release of the brain chemical dopamine, telling the brain “do it again.” What makes permanent recovery difficult is drug-induced change that creates lasting memories linking the drug to a pleasurable reward.

                      Holy fuck, Batman! Could that be the memory I mentioned before? Fuck no, just because they used the word “memory” doesn’t have any relevance.

                    119. Some people can’t get over their memories. Wow Skippy, who could have ever thought of that?

                      What makes permanent recovery difficult is drug-induced change that creates lasting memories linking the drug to a pleasurable reward.

                      Big fucking deal. Some people still chose to stop using drugs, why?

                    120. Because the impulse to use them is not stronger than their desire to stop.

                    121. Because the impulse to use them is not stronger than their desire to stop

                      Which is another way of saying they chose to stop. What is going on here, impulses or will?

                    122. God you’re dense. Those memories are the fucking bias in your decision process. More from the abstract:

                      Recent research shows that addiction involves many of the same brain circuits that govern learning and memory. Long-term memories are formed by the activity of brain substances called transcription factors. All perceived rewards, including drugs, increase the concentration of transcription factors. So repeatedly taking drugs can change the brain cells and make the memory of the pleasurable effects very strong.

                      There is your physical mechanism.

                      Keep digging that hole.

                    123. There is your physical mechanism.

                      Except that it doesn’t always result in people using drugs. It results in the desire to use drugs. Some people choose not to. Why?

                      Is there any question you can’t beg skippy? Is there any tautological statement you can’t make? Really?

                    124. John, you’re making Tony look coherent right now. Seriously, it’s that bad.

                      How many fucking times do I have to tell you that you can have a biased selector that TENDS to drive a decision in a certain direction but is not GUARANTEED to do so. That can be your free will. It can be random quantum fluctuations. Maybe it can be something else entirely. But it doesn’t have to be one and only one thing just because you can only comprehend free will or no free will.

                      Honestly, you would deny that loaded dice can exist. Your logic is beyond bizarre.

                    125. Skippy,

                      How many times do you have to fucking be told that calling it a “bias” is nothing but begging the question as to what it is. You don’t even know what a bias is. It is just a word you use to describe when people make different decisions. So what. I call that, choice. Neither one of us have any idea what that means. The difference is I realize that and you tell yourself fairy tails pretending you do.

                    126. And more to the point, YOU are the one demanding the Manichean choice (first time I’ve ever used that word). I am saying that free will and evolutionary bias are not mutually exclusive. I can have something that biases my decision and still have the ability to make the decision.

                    127. I am saying that free will and evolutionary bias are not mutually exclusive. I can have something that biases my decision and still have the ability to make the decision.

                      And that is logically nonsense. Either you can ignore the “bias” or you can’t. If you can’t, then the biases don’t control or explain your behavior.

                    128. Nobody except you is talking about evpsy anymore – we concede that its bullshit.

                      You are still talking about some ‘unknown’ mechanism that causes the mind to arrive.

                    129. That a craving for alcohol by an alcoholic can always be overcome by that person’s will alone?

                      Well yeah…

                    130. My cortex is just like yours.

                      If somebody murders John in the next few hours, forget you ever heard of internet commenter Sidd Finch.

                    131. Do you have a special cortex there sid? Last I looked, we all got issued a pretty standard brain. Is there some special feature that some of us have that others don’t? That will be news to the neurosciences.

                    132. Last I looked, we all got issued a pretty standard brain.

                      That’s obviously a lie, since you’ve never looked.

                    133. YEah Sid, we all think differently. That is kind of what the thread is about. But the brain still has the same parts and still made of the same stuff. And that was my point. Try a little harder next time.

                    134. But the brain still has the same parts and still made of the same stuff.

                      Do you realize what you’re saying? How drunk are you?

                    135. My cortex is just like yours. Yet somehow I have different impulse control. No one can explain why. It just is.

                      Holy shit. I know it won’t matter to John, but that isn’t even a matter of opinion, hard-to-test theories, etc. That is just totally, dead wrong.

                      If you believe this, get a labelled atlas of the brain and a half-dozen real-life MRI scans of different brains. Then start matching up the various gyri and sulci — have fun!

                    136. Nice try thane. but you are making a pedantic and irrelevant point. My brain waves are different than yours depending on what I am thinking. My cortex is made up of the same stuff, has the same basic capabilities. Why does mine think differently than yours? Well, that is kind of the question isn’t’ it?

                    137. Why does mine think differently than yours?

                      Different genes
                      Change in synaptic connections
                      Neural plasticity
                      Differing hormone levels
                      Differing neurotransmitter levels
                      Substantially greater structural differences than you seem to think
                      Different food / drug consumption
                      Different experiences
                      Association learning
                      Different age
                      Differently-performing senses

                      And so on and so forth. Note that these all overlap with one another.

                      Please, John, it’s past your bedtime.

                    138. Thane,

                      I get it, you can make up shit and pretend you have proof that that explains behavior. Of course none of that can predict my behavior. And you have no understanding of how it interracts to produce behavior.

                      You just told me your fairy tail. Good for you. But it is still a fairy tail you tell yourself.

                    139. LMFAO.

                    140. You should be laughing thane. Part of religion is a sense of humor. If you buy into this shit, you are just buying into a religion. That is all it is. It is not science. It is just faith based fairy tails.

                    141. Oh, I am laughing. Previously I was quite irritated, but I’m now entertained with how obvious it is that you’re either totally deluded or a master troll. Kudos to you, either way.

                      And it’s “Thane”, not “thane”. I’ll have the Jarl’s men on you soon enough if you don’t get it straight.

                    142. I am the deluded one. Have fun. Get up tomorrow morning and have a coffee and tell yourself it tastes good because when men came down from the trees the men who liked bitter fruits survived better and spread their genes. If it makes you feel good and keeps you from facing the uncertainty of life, have at it.

                      I should stop picking on you. I am sorry. Who am I to force you see the world as it is. You are better off as you are.

                    143. HAHAHAHA. I can’t imagine the evolutionary circumstances that gave rise to your cortex. Anyway, I’m done. The field is yours to free will with… or not.

                    144. Yet somehow I have different impulse control. No one can explain why. It just is. my understanding of impulse control is that you can train it. Like good boxers can hone their blocking and timing of their punches.

                      I certainly think when they block a punch they are using their reptilian brain to get such fast reactions. They have trained to streamline any cerebral cortex processing and send it as fast as possible to the reptilian part which also has been honed to put up the glove with the right strength and correct position to take the hit.

                      I am not arguing against the existence of free will and consciousness. I guess my answer is we have different impulse control because our free will and conscious choices has honed our impulse controls differently.

                    145. I guess my answer is we have different impulse control because our free will and conscious choices has honed our impulse controls differently.

                      That is might be true. But if it is, that doesn’t help evolutionary psych’s cause at all.

                    146. yeah, we got it – we don’t like evpsy either.

                      We’re talking about you’re refutation of evolutionary theory (or at least the part that applies to the human mind).

                    147. We’re talking about you’re refutation of evolutionary theory (or at least the part that applies to the human mind).

                      Then you are arguing with voices in your head or you believe in evolutionary pschy.

                    148. You are the one who say the structure of the brain don’t give rise to the mind, that they can’t otherwise we wouldn’t have free-will.

                      Again, you’re assuming we *have* free-will instead of an illusion of it and if you say the structures of the brain can’t give rise to mind then you would have to explain *where* mind resides.

                      Hint, modern medicine has place the seat of consciousness firmly in the brain.

                    149. You are the one who say the structure of the brain don’t give rise to the mind, that they can’t otherwise we wouldn’t have free-will.

                      I never said it didn’t. I said if it did, we don’t have free will. Maybe it does. If it does, then we don’t have free will or a self in anyway other than an illusion. I admitted that possibility long ago.

                      But if that is true, then we will never be able to penetrate the illusion and understand how things work. But I never said the mind couldn’t be the product of the brain.

                      You guys just assumed I did.

                    150. You have said that evolutionary theory is unable to explain your behavior – that’s not what it does.

                      It posits a mechanism by which all of an organism comes into being – physical plan *and* behavior.

                      Its not, and doesn’t try to explain why *exactly* people do the things they do, only to say that they do them because of the design of their brain.

                      Again, even free-will is a product of evolution but you seem to think you have free will – by definition your mind couldn’t have evolved.

                    151. You have said that evolutionary theory is unable to explain your behavior – that’s not what it does.

                      I agree. And that is why I think evolution has no place in psychology and why I think evolutionary psych is bullshit.

                    152. we don’t have free will or a self in anyway other than an illusion

                      This is why I believe in free will. How can one have the illusion of free will without actually having some sort of free will. What would be fooled by it and why fool something that does not exist?

                      I guess solipsism works….but that path is chopped into ground beef once it hits Occum’s razor.

                    153. Its a pretty core tenant of evolution that *all* of an organism is pretty well codified between your genetic code and interactions with chemical gradiations during gestations.

                      To say that the mid *may* not come from the structures of the brain – well, where else would the come form.

                      And I’m not talking about some hitherto undiscovered feature of the brain, I’m talking about what could POSSIBLY cause consciousness *except* the structures of the brain.

                    154. And I’m not talking about some hitherto undiscovered feature of the brain, I’m talking about what could POSSIBLY cause consciousness *except* the structures of the brain.

                      To be fair, an educated medieval person transported into 2014 and given a radio would quite rationally conclude that the voice must be coming from a tiny person somewhere inside the box. If you told him no, someone is talking 100 miles away, invisible signals travel to the box, and the box makes noises that sound like the person talking, they’d call Occam’s Razor on you. And how come the voice gets softer and softer if they leave the radio and walk toward the person talking?

                      The error there, of course, is assuming that voices always come from people and not understanding EM radiation. Perhaps there is a similar bias among those who assume that consciousness MUST arise from physical brain structures.

                    155. You know who else doesn’t “believe in evolutionary pschy”?

                      These fucking Marxists, your intellectual peers.

                    156. E O wilson and Noam Chomsky????

                      I think we have different definitions of evolutionary pschy.

                      E O Wilson wrote “On Human sexuality” and Noam Chomsky helped develop (if not completely came up with) the idea that language is innate not learned.

                      These guys friggin founded Evo Psch.

                    157. Members of the Sociobiology Study Group included Richard C. Lewontin (geneticist, Harvard University), Stephen Jay Gould (paleontologist, Harvard University), Jon Beckwith (Harvard Medical School), Stephan Chorover (psychologist, MIT), David Culver (biologist, Northwestern University), Ruth Hubbard (biologist, Harvard University), Anthony Leeds (anthropologist, Boston University), Margaret Duncan (research assistant, Harvard Medical School), Hiroshi Inouye (resident fellow, Harvard Medical School), Chuck Madansky (graduate student, Harvard Medical School), Miriam Rosenthal (research associate, Harvard School of Public Health), Reed Pyeritz (doctor, Peter Bent Brigham Hospital), and Herb Schreier (psychiatrist, Massachusetts General Hospital).[2]

                      What on Earth are you talking about?

                    158. What on Earth are you talking about?

                      Click and read the Wikipedia link that YOU posted.

                      The Sociobiology Study Group was an academic organization formed to specifically counter sociobiological explanations of human behavior, particularly those expounded by the Harvard entomologist E. O. Wilson

                    159. formed to specifically counter sociobiological explanations of human behavior

                      oh wait. Nevermind.

                      Weird that Noam Chomsky is a common guest and Stephen Jay Gould is a member.

                      Both seem like they would be big on Evo Psych.

                    160. Gould is exactly the opposite of a person who would like evo psych.

                      Chomskey is too but his craziness if much more influential than his ideology. I can respect that, I think.

                    161. I think we’re talking (at least I am)about more complex impulses, like the impulse to shoot a guy in a movie theater or have sex with a hot woman (when you have a not very understanding wife).

                    162. here’s a prime example of how the human mind doesn’t have complete free-will.

                      Touch a really hot stove – you pull away before you’ve been burnt. No free-will there, its a pre-counscious reflex, a hold-over from structures in the brain that are clearly similar to structures in other animals.

                    163. Relfexs are like your heart beating. That is not the product of will.

                    164. I know its not the product of will – that’s my point.

                      You have evidence of non-free-will actions.

                    165. My cortex is made up of the same stuff, has the same basic capabilities.

                      “To call the belief in substantial human equality a superstition is to insult superstition. It might be unwarranted to believe in leprechauns, but at least the person who holds to such a belief isn’t watching them not exist, for every waking hour of the day.”

                    166. Touch a really hot stove – you pull away before you’ve been burnt. No free-will there, its a pre-counscious reflex, a hold-over from structures in the brain that are clearly similar to structures in other animals.

                      Actually that has nothing to do with the brain. Associative neurons in the spinal cord initiate the reflex before the brain gets any signal, which is why you jerk your arm away and then feel the pain.

                    167. & bear in mind, the fact the humans have instinctual type habits and behaviors, in no way subverts the idea of free will.

                      Depends on what you mean by “subvert”. It certainly doesn’t *contradict* the idea of free will, but it does set tighter and tighter limits on its significance.

                      It’s sort of like God. At the dawn of history, people thought pretty much everything not controlled by humans was controlled by gods. They made us from clay, decided when the winds would blow and the rains would come, chose when we would get sick and how we would die, made the earth shake when they were angry, etc. No wonder people were willing to sacrifice their children and shit — you just did not want to piss off someone that powerful!

                      But as science progressed, the sphere of influence still open to God got smaller and smaller… so that at this point, he’s relegated to influencing only unobservable and unfalsifiable things. There’s been no PROOF that God is dead yet, but he’s dying a death by a thousand qualifications (not my phrase — some philosopher coined it in the 1950s).

                      Have you read any of BF Skinner or the other behaviorists’ writings? They have some pretty strong evidence that FW is minimally important to anything observable.

                    168. Yes, I’ve read BF and others, but being able to be trained in strict circumstances doesn’t refute the free will we see throughout human history.

                      Think of all the historical scenarios (and current ones like NK) in which any peoples were enslaved and you’ll read tons of stories of slaves doing really stupid things like angering their master.

                      Even after being born and raised into a world where that’s all they knew – that’s all their parents knew – with both societal and very strong direct pressure to just be a ‘slave’ a number of them chose to do the irrational thing and flee.

                      In all of history, in the worst of circumstances humans can be put under, a small percentage of humans still tend to be able to defy all that human behavior would make them do without ever thinking of “free will” or anything else.

                      I’m sorry, but being trainable simply doesn’t refute free will in the least.

                      In fact – since humans seem to be infinitely adaptable, I would think their ability to react to different carrots and sticks depending upon the scenario/their environment to demonstrate free will, not be evidence of its absence.

        2. Without warning, Ben leapt over a parapet on the century-old granite bridge and fell 50ft to his death on the rocks below.

          ‘His paw was broken, his jaw was broken and his back was broken and badly twisted. The vet decided it wasn’t worth putting him through the pain, so we had to let him go,’ recalls Donna.

          So he *didn’t ‘fall to his death’. He fell and was seriously injured and *you*, on advice of the vet, decided for euthanasia.

          Fuck, I thought the advantage of the MSM is that they have *editors*.

          Also, take some responsibility.

    2. And the minimum wage thread is up to the arm pits in Tonyderp.

      1. Not gonna subject myself to thast

      2. Thanks for the heads up. No reason to check back on that one if it has been shat on by derp-tronic.

      3. I’m guessing someone already posted the Justin Bieber egging update somewhere and I keep missing it. But here it is again.

      4. Couldn’t make it past his third post. What an idiot.

      5. Man, I don’t usually get after people for a little OT rapping, but this thread has been shat the fuck over. Thomas is dead, and his murderers are trying to get their job back so they can go back to murdering. Shouldn’t we be discussing our options about how these two officers should be dealt with?

  3. MIDNIGHT? FUCK THAT SHIT. YOU JUST LOST YOURSELF A CUSTOMER, WELCH.

    1. You should live in a more laid back timezone, FoE. I highly recommend Pacific Time.

        1. I’ll bet that doesn’t ring bells for you.
          That’s Erhart Seminars Training, courtesy of an ex-encyclopedia salesman turned new-age ‘guru’.
          He certainly made some money off the suckers…

      1. You’re right, jesse, I should smoke a bowl right now. After all, it’s after 5PM Pacific.

        1. See, Epi’s picking up what I’m putting down.

        2. All you pacifickers can smoke a bowl of dicks for all we easterners are concerned.

          1. Actually, it’s LA Confidential, not dicks. I wanted Cheese Quake but he was all out, unfortunately.

          2. I will remember that for when Al-Quada (or whatever random fanatic group gets a bug up its ass) blows up your shit again.

    2. Oh whaaa! Don’t like it when a program comes on at an inconvenient hour? Welcome to the world West Coasters inhabit.

      1. Oh fuck off, you get to watch the Superbowl at a reasonable hour.

        1. Yes. Yes we do.

    3. Turns out even FOE sleeps sometimes

      1. WRONG. It’s when I’m slated to masturbate.

        1. You don’t masturbate 24/7?

          1. Its like breathing – sure he masturbates 24/7 but a lot of that is just maintenance.

            Midnight is all-out, furious action – like a cat who sleeps all day and then freaks out at 2 am.

          2. If I did, I’d have to post a link to a link of it….

    4. According to my box guide, that “pre-emption by live event coverage” is a car auction.

      What the fuck.

      1. Hmm, doesn’t bode well for the show if they’re losing their timeslot to an auction.

        Who the hell would want to spend 2100 watching a car auction anyway?

    5. Just post your comments at the normal time. No one will be able to tell the difference.

      Here, let me start:

      Kennedy’s talking over the guests again.

      The lib isn’t making any sense.

      Kweme is kicking butt.

      The R is totally reactionary.

      Matt is adding a note of sanity.

      Oh, damn, they changed topics just as it was getting good.

        1. These ads a totally creepy. Also, cheap~!

    6. You don’t like car auctions, Fist of Etiquette?

      1. It’s a trap. They’re just secretly initiating Cash for Clunkers II. ON NATIONAL TV! Well, as national TV as Fox Biz gets.

  4. I guess we’ll just have to amuse ourselves for the next 4 hours. I hereby submit another smarmy rant Sam Seder made on MSNBC, which is smug to the 2nd power:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXM6c2W3zCk

    1. I’d never even heard of this guy until you started posting about him.

      I’m beginning to see why.

      1. He’s only funny on the cartoon Home Movies, which uses his nasally, grating voice for (real) comedy.

    2. Is that supposed to be humorous?

      1. You’re not laughing? But he used all the buzzwords: Limbaugh, Koch Bos, Tea Party.

  5. Maybe the Pope should rethink his criticisms of wealth and capitalism if he intends to swap his fame and motorcycle for money, whatever the cause. After all, someone has to have the wealth to trade for it first.

    1. Hands off the Popecycle!

    2. I am not aware of any Catholic teaching about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The Pope said business can be an honorable calling.

      By the way, the article says the Pope is selling off a leather jacket, too. Perhaps Nick Gillespie can ask the Kochs to but it for him!

    3. And the worst part – those damn buyers are getting *more* in value for the money they spent!

      For shame, there should be a windfall profit tax on the buyers.

  6. I’ll repost too.

    This is pretty cool. It snowed here last night, and it was a particularly wet snow. These snowballs were caused by the wind. I’ve seen these things at the bottom of steep inclines, but these happened on a flat surface.

    Bizarre.

    1. Looks pretty peaceful, I can see you why you like it. How far are you from the nearest town?

      1. Define town…

        There is a very small town, Belt (pop 606), 2.5 miles away. It’s 22 miles to Great Falls.

        1. I’m mostly thinking a place with a hospital and emergency services.

        2. Jesus, that really is in the middle of nowhere. That makes my old getaway location look positively populated.

          1. Maine appears to be the last little bastion of solitude in the east. My college roommate lives near Raymond.

            1. And now I want to go back to the log cabin on the lake. Fuck, it’s been a long time.

        3. How often do you go into town?

          1. To town, or through town?

            I go to pick something up once or twice a week. I often go hunting or fishing on the other side and just drive through.

    2. Some days. When all is calm, the sun is shining and the world white, I actually love winter.

    3. What a beautiful location!

    4. Pretty. I’m surprised you get broadband all the way out there…

      1. It sucks. We’re at the end of the DSL line and get about 3mbs (download). 1/2 a mile away they are laying FO…15mbs and cable. We’re not slated to get it for two years, because they want to get broadband to those that have nothing before they upgrade those who already have it. Wife’s a big gamer and it’s an issue. I can’t download movies while she’s playing.

  7. http://fellowshipoftheminds.co…..speaks-up/

    Obama gay?

    I’ll leave it up to you guys to determine if this is conspiracy stuff.

    1. That would be unfortunate. Team gay might get a reputation for being shitty in the White House. For now we can just pretend that James Buchanan was a fluke.

      1. And what’s with all the people dying around him?

        I know the Clinton mysteries have been pretty much debunked but is this in the same vain?

        The article alleges cocaine use, gay activity and murder.

        1. I should think everybody around James Buchanan is dead by now.

          1. OMG, you’re right!

            And he was a little bit too comfortable with the idea of chains and whips.

          2. Conspiracy!

          3. /snaps finger.

            Was hoping something was there.

      2. That’s why we need Hillary in office next – she’s a two-fer.

    2. Is it bad that I would like this to be true just so we can get past the “OMG WE NEED TO ELECT THE FIRST GAY PRESIDENT FOR HIZTORYY!!!11!!!!!1!!1

      1. No, we already did that. James Buchanan.

        One could argue we need to elect the first OPENLY gay President, but Buchanan is still probably a good fit:

        I am now ‘solitary and alone,’ having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone, and [I] should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection.

        What will be really fun is fucking with the historically illiterate queer activists when they try to claim that I need to vote for Candidate X because he’s going to be the first gay president. The idea of having our history swept into the closet is a potent one.

        1. This is certainly very suggestive. Maybe he was gay – though for some reason I doubt he would be considered a credit to his orientation. See my chains and whips joke.

          He was engaged to some girl and broke it off, then never remarried. I bet that girl knew whether he was gay or not.

          Of course, politicians then (all males) lodged together in Washington boardinghouses, ate together, played cards together, took bribes together, and so on. And Andrew Jackson would have called anyone effeminate who didn’t kill at least one guy in a duel.

          1. If I remember correctly their nieces got together to burn a bunch of their correspondence after both of them were dead, but yes, it is only suggestive.

            Buchanan isn’t a credit to much. I believe he’s rated as one of the worst presidents ever. The Nikki of the presidency if you will. Like I said above, I’m hoping he’s a fluke.

          2. Or maybe it was the girl who broke it off? Um, so to speak.

    3. He’s always struck me as a DL brotha, but what do I know?

    4. Have you seen his wife? If that wouldn’t turn you gay, I’m not sure what would…

  8. Caught a few moments of chemical hysteria on proletariat radio, talking about flame retardants being carcinogens, and used in couches, etc. I had remembered that flame retardants had issues, but figured those ones were mostly gone. Did a quick search to see when they were required, and came upon this forgotten gem from November:

    Jerry Brown updates law he signed in his first time as Governor requiring carcinogenic flame retardants.

    1. Look, you shouldn’t be sitting on the couch anyway, exercise instead. That way you can help push off the government having to pay for your ill old-age, you ungrateful bastard.

      Plus, every *knows* that couches will spontaneously combust all the time without this stuff while cancer will only kill you in 30 years or so.

    2. At least that only causes cancer. Look what else the twerp did:
      “”Back when Jerry Brown was governor nearly 35 years ago, in his first day in office, he gave public service unions the right to collective bargaining,” Republican Meg Whitman said back in April.”
      http://calwatchdog.com/2010/10…..3gMDP.dpuf
      Actually, he didn’t give anyone a “right” to anything; he merely made the taxpayers subject to the whims of the pub-sec unions.

  9. Flabby Fox News liberal drops f-bomb on ive TV; proceeds to blame Yawn Vanity.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYCUe0OczNM

    1. Beckel: great troll or the greatest troll?

      Discuss.

      1. Then Beckel jumps in, interrupting Tantaros to conclude, “Most of them were gang banged, probably.” The host then hedges, “I don’t know.”

        Responding to his co-hosts’ obvious shock and discomfort, Beckel continues: “Well, I don’t know, they could have had sexual assault on them?”

        Beckel’s “gang banged” comment seemed to earn an angry response from his producers, whom Beckel attempts to mollify while still on camera.

        As the hosts around him stay quiet, Beckel seems to address the control room: “Well I didn’t use any crude language. I apologize for crude language. Oh, c’mon man, you can’t [hang me] with that. That’s not right! There was nothing wrong with that!”

        This is fucking hilarious.

          1. That was… special.

                  1. Asian-American, please.

                    1. That rug really tied the room together.

                  2. Maybe he’s been reading Sowell.

    2. Fox can’t have any *real* liberals. First, they’re evil and would never hire someone who could expose their evil. Second, liberals don’t sell out, so they would not accept a job with Faux News. It’s probably a guy in a liberal costume.

      1. That is basically a comment on the link HM posted.

        1. Well, I think they will have ‘real’ liberals, but its Fox – they’ll find the derpiest and showcase them as mainstream liberal thought.

          And often they’ll be right.

  10. Has the Wookie had enough? Was it one selfie too many?

    http://mobile.news.com.au/worl…..6800350829

    1. No way they’d break up publicly; they’re both tied to power or the illusion thereof at least as strongly as Bubba and the Hil.

      1. Two words: Bill Clinton.

    2. “As part of her birthday gift from the president, the First Lady will remain in Hawaii to spend time with friends ahead of her upcoming 50th birthday,” /

      You know, I’m pretty sure that violates all sort of government gift accepting rules.

    3. It would not make any sense. She only has to wait 3 years and it is smooth sailing and what is he going to do?

      Sure he could get young tail but he will lose half his shit…plus she keeps in shape.

  11. Fuck, I don’t think I’m going to invite anyone to my house ever again.

    Got a friend of mine who just came up here so his wife could have their second child – they stayed with me for a couple of week before heading back to Mexico. Unfortunately – their older boy was sick and got me sick. The last two days have been miserable.

    1. Got a friend of mine who just came up here so his wife could have their second child – they stayed with me for a couple of week before heading back to Mexico

      ANCHOR BABY!

      1. Kinda – he’s a naturalized citizen and wants to avoid the hassle of trying to prove the kids citizenship later so he’s getting an American BC

        And his job’s health insurance doesn’t cover health care across the border but will cover the birth here.

        1. Yeah, makes sense. Although if his job requires him to work Mexico wouldn’t they provide him with some form of health insurance he can use down there?

          1. His job is in the US – he lives just across the border and commutes because its about 9000000000 times cheaper there than even right over here.

    2. Yeah, having two toddlers myself I dread what they may be bringing back from their daily germ-swap-meet. I haven’t had any bad colds or flu so far but I get a lot of little infections – mostly fingertips – than I ever got before.

      1. Aren’t you in Japan? I’d be careful…you could be starting to get that hikikomori.

    3. Hey! Hey! Pay attention to me, I haven’t gotten enough sympathy yet. Its my right to be fawned over because I’m feeling bad.

      I’m. . . I’m gonna KILL myself

      and then you’ll be sorry.

  12. TRIGGER PWND

    This would be a good time to admit that I am massively, massively triggered by social justice.

    I know exactly why this started. There was an incident in college when I was editing my college newspaper, I tried to include a piece of anti-racist humor, and it got misinterpreted as a piece of pro-racist humor. The college’s various social-justice-related-clubs decided to make an example out of me. I handled it poorly (“BUT GUYS! THE EVIDENCE DOESN’T SUPPORT WHAT YOU’RE DOING!”) and as a result spent a couple of weeks having everyone in the college hold rallies against me followed by equally horrifying counter-rallies for me. I received a couple of death threats, a few people tried to have me expelled, and then everyone got bored and found some other target who was even more fun to harass. Meantime, I was seriously considering suicide.

    Odds that “trigger warning: social justice” becomes a thing?

    1. Does anyone study in college anymore?

      1. If everything triggers something in someone, I.can’t see.how.they.can be expected to study.

        The most we can hope.for.is.that our.children get better than.a Crocodile in Math.

        1. Or an Elvis in science.

      2. Yes.

        The ones that study are the ones not going after a puppetry major…or political science degree.

    2. Remind me WTF ‘triggering’ means to the Brilliant Youth of America?

      1. It means you are a big pussy and certain topics give you the vapors.

        So a ‘trigger warning’ is put in the beginning of the piece to alert you to anything that might trigger one of your panic attacks.

  13. Ancient history: Team Blue drone at Scott Walker protest sings Pledge of Love to the World:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlntDrZVSuY

    Poe’s Law strikes again.

  14. I heard the FCC got put in its place by the courts today.

  15. Progressive feminist falls in love with sexy libertarian Republican, discovers her proggie friends are dicks

    What surprised me was that mostly it was not the intolerant, sanctimonious Republicans but my love-the-world, yoga-practicing, gluten-free progressive best friends who were apoplectic over my new romance. “A Republican? Are you that desperate? Don’t you know what they’re doing to our country?” (Funny, they were never as worried about the heroin addicts or that one guy who’d seen the inside of Folsom.)

    Some friends of mine even disinvited us to a dinner party when they found out what Jimmy did for a living. Too bad. Not only because they made an awesome artichoke risotto, but because they missed talking to him. They missed his encyclopedic knowledge of American history, his fervent love of wilderness and of the American park system, his wry sense of humor, his love of great books, his punk-rockabilly past as a professional musician, his arrest record. They missed joining with me to tell him that he is socially liberal and fiscally just wrong, and they missed the argument over the fiscal part that always gets my blood going.

    Mostly they missed knowing a man who is loyal to the people he loves. He is fierce, and smart, and unique, and particular, a man whose sum total is not represented by any politician or confined within the doctrine of political party.

    1. “libertarian Republican”

      Ask him if he is pro-choice, bitch. He can’t be both the above at the same time.

      1. You are an idiot, like always.

        1. No, don’t you see? When you read the LP’s platform plank on Abortion with PB’s special decoder ring:

          1.4 Abortion

          Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

          It decodes into:

          1.4 Abortion

          Shoving steel spikes into the brainpans of babies is allll–rrrrriiighhht!

          1. Of course, his being a fairly prominent figure in the GOP establishment, I *would* question his bona fides on the fiscally conservative question.

          2. 1.4 in the LP platform is graciously worded.

            I have a big problem with ANOTHER police state formed to monitor women and their uterus like supposedly “libertarian” R/R Paul want to do.

            I score higher on the LP Purity Test than either of them do.

            “Freedom” my ass. The Bible-Beating jackoffs in the GOP care as much about freedom as the Taliban does.

            1. Sure, just as much as the Marx-Beating Jackoffs in the DNC.

            2. I score higher on the LP Purity Test than either of them do.

              That’s been clear to us, like… forever.

              1. There is a test?

                FUCK!!!!

      2. Ask him if he is pro-choice, bitch. He can’t be both the above at the same time.

        There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, moron.

      3. Ask him if he is pro-choice, bitch. He can’t be both the above at the same time.

        Yep, because telling a woman at the begining of a relationship that you want to kill any babies that might be formed from the union is a sure fire way to get lots of good sex.

    2. They missed joining with me to tell him that he is socially liberal and fiscally just wrong, and they missed the argument over the fiscal part that always gets my blood going.

      Go fuck yourself, lady.

      1. Seriously. I’ll take a fiscally conservative/socially liberal guy off her hands anytime.

        1. Arguing over fiscal policies that effect the livelihoods of millions as merely just a foreplay activity to get that old bat’s dried-out pussy wet, like spitting on a piece of beefy jerky….is just insufferable.

          1. Hot damn sir, you do have a way with words.

            1. HM is a treasure, a resource and always do I look forward to reading him, when he gets his teeth into something or someone.

              I love this place.

    3. Most progs immediately assume anybody who does not parrot their religion has to be a Rethuglican. Anything slightly out of harmony is the enemy. I wonder if this point is dawning on the author of this above post?

    4. Mostly they missed knowing a man who is loyal to the people he loves. He is fierce, and smart, and unique, and particular, a man whose sum total is not represented by any politician or confined within the doctrine of political party.

      Something tells me this woman is not going to be a progressive for very long. Once you start becoming tolerant of other people’s views, it’s impossible to maintain the gross stupidity necessary to maintain the prog delusion.

  16. “Like global warming, no science proves NFL concussions exist”

    – Rush ‘King of the Rednecks’ Limbaugh. All made up by political interests…

    http://mediamatters.org/video/…..tic/197586

    1. Mediamatters? For you? A classical liberal?

      1. What is wrong with MM? Have you been listening to the Beckerhead talk about how Soros pitched in a few million for it? After the right tried to destroy Soros for his libertarian views? Cato grants Soros honorary privileges just as REASON used to.

        So what? All they do is post a video of some greasy GOP fuck talk nonsense and then quote him verbatim.

        “(like this)”.

        1. MM is progressive gibberish. No real classical liberal would cite it.

          1. You’re full of shit.

            MM is just a video/audio library with links to real news articles that refute the sources bogus claims.

            MM is a watchdog – something that too rarely exists today.

            1. MM is a clearinghouse for prog talking points and propaganda, so dipshits like you know what to pretend to think.

              1. Look at my link to Pigboy’s proclamation that the NFL concussion science is made up.

                Do you see a rebuttal? An editorial?

                No, you don’t.

                Just Pigboy making shit up again.

                1. No one cares dipshit.

            2. Oh, shut up you disingenuous boob.

              They’re a left-wing rag.

              Classically liberal my ass.

              1. Does PB think we’ll believe his bullshit? Or is he just a moron?

                1. moron

        2. What is wrong with MM?

          That they want to impose a state-run media to make us free?

    2. Thanks for pointing that out, PB, because everyone here is a huge fan of Limbaugh…oh, wait…never mind.

      …but that would make you kind of a…

      Yeah.

      1. Who here is a fan of Amanda Marcotte? Of Yglesius?

        No one is. But their articles and utterances are posted 24/7.

        The GOP has become the party of greasy headed redneck anti-intellectual Southerners. Live with it, fuckhole.

        1. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

          1. Seconded.

          2. I didn’t even know he was into football let alone football concussions.

        2. Dropped on his head at a young age…he can’t help it.

  17. Hungry for more clueless gun-grabber pablum? Step right up!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Y5dU19Ll0

    1. The audio makes it unwatchable.

  18. Stupidest prog ever?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taUJthfnWfs

    Rents should be lowered?
    We need a perfect pesticide?
    “We can make things- things cars.”
    “On the east coast, they have slaves.”

    1. That can’t be real.

      Frozen fruit lasts forever?

      Food is free but we can sell it?

      Is she dating Yglesias?

      1. I want that video auto-tuned.

    2. And you thought PB couldn’t get a girl friend. Imagine the conversations they would have!

      *vomits uncontrollably

  19. Re: the ‘Bieber egging’

    “In last Thursday’s incident, a neighbor called authorities to the 25000 block of Prado del Grandioso, saying someone was pelting his home with eggs”

    While not a direct translation, “Prado del Grandioso” is understood to mean, “Neighborhood of Giant Assholes”

    Just looked at Google Maps. I’m sure the cops were like, “Sir, where on the house did you say the eggs hit?”.

    …”The South-Southwest Wing. No, past the indoor waterslide. Near the hovercraft pad.”

    1. Best part – they *raided* the house,due to the owner’s ‘assessment’ of the damage, over what is basically a bullshit felony.

      There’s absolutely no-way that the police couldn’t have, I don’t know, picked him up at work. Or, you know, not searched the house just because they could.

      If *I* were a judge, the drug charges would be dropped simply because the judge who signed the warrant shouldn’t have allowed that shit.

  20. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give the best of Detroit city council meetings:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrFvAiQDuEo

    1. She sounded ever so slightly like Alexyss K. Tylor

      1. She sounded ever so slightly like Alexyss K. Tylor

        Holy shit! You’re right!

        Dick I’ll Make You SLAP Somebody!

    2. Old news. That’s Monica Conyers – she all in jail and out already.

      It’s not a good council meeting without singing…..

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohvx1QpQ2Ac

    3. First one on there is Monica Conyer’s, wife of Congressman John Conyers. She got out of prison a bit ago after a year and some change for taking a bribe. Of something like $7000.

      “Shrek” is the best part, when she starts calling him Shrek.

        1. Wow. What a miserable cunt.

          Lemme get this straight.

          She defended herself by lowering herself to what grade school kids would do?

          1. Classic Conyers

        2. That 8th grader kicked her ass.

          As a side note, being a reporter in Detroit must be hilarious.

      1. Real professional.

        No wonder Detroit is rotting.

        With clowns like that.

        1. The worst of those ones are out. Now the city council (just started) is by district with a couple of at-large seats. New mayor is at least somewhat respectable.

          Neither have any major power with the emergency manager. Mayor is mostly working with him, although city council remains to be seen.

          I don’t have a lot of hope of the city government being better after the EM is gone and bankruptcy case is done.

    4. I just don’t understand why Detroit has issues.

    5. God, I had to deal with so many people like that woman in the Navy.

      ‘It doesn’t matter that I fucked up, I just don’t like your tone of voice’ bullshit – its nothing but an attempt to deflect and regain control.

  21. A group of health-care professionals is urging the Ontario government to raise the minimum wage to $14 from $10.25 an hour, saying poverty is a real health issue, especially for children.
    Dr. Gary Block, a family physician at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, says he understands small businesses worry a hike in the minimum wage would drive up costs and force them to cut staff.

    1. Everything is tied to a health issue in Canada.

    2. “But Block says he wants to shine a light on the fact most minimum wage workers in Canada are employed by large, multi-national corporations.”

      Big shit. What matters is what percentage of the labor force earns MW. Small I bet just like in the USA.

    3. Wait, you mean universal healthcare isn’t working!

  22. “Instead of really helping viewers understand the day-to-day responsibilities of attending to a new infant — scrubbing poop stains or spit-up out of clothing — or dwelling on the ‘mundane,’ MTV chooses to focus on the girls’ volatile relationships with the babies’ fathers or their new body piercings and tattoos,” Parents Television Council Director Melissa Henson wrote on CNN. “That makes for better TV.”

    Liberals don’t realize that the “girls’ volatile relationships with the babies’ fathers is probably a better argument than having to scrub poop stains. Because all women with children have to scrub out poop stains. It is “mundane” and normal. These females are all about social status, so a good deterrent would be to emphasize the reduced social status that these relationships bring.

    1. Yea, the girls at risk of getting knocked up aren’t the ones oblivious to the horrors of changing diapers.

  23. So, new Archer – I think they jumped into the new setting too fast. Should have been a couple of episodes transition, expand on the ‘escaping from the FBI and going on the run’ storyline.

    1. Last night’s episode seemed like it was really only 13 minutes long, given the number of commercials and the length of the preview montage at the end.

      But I think their intention was to quickly set up this new premise and then dive right into the drug trade story with the rest of their episodes. It seems like they have a lot of ideas.

      1. The fact that he ended the montage with “Archer Vice!” makes me very excited about the new storylines.

        1. It looks like they are going for a mash-up of 80s action movies (complete with a fictional Latin American country) and ‘Nashville’ with Cheryl’s country music career. Going to be awesome.

          1. Movie references in the clips: Fugitive, ET, Midnight Run, Smokey and the Bandit. I’m sure I’m forgetting/missed some.

    2. Depends on how the next one goes, I think. I’d imagine they have some time on the run coming up.

      I love that it was just “you can’t just kill people!”

    3. I won’t be watching it until tomorrow, so I guess reading H&R comments puts me into the danger zone.

  24. Barack Obama, what a traitor. And you know who else are traitors? You filthy traitor libertarians promoting their miscegnetion and spci and nigger immigration. You have no loyatly to your race, only loyalty to international finacers. You all will be sorry when the revolution occurs.

    Heil Hilter

    1. Who let the Hitler clone out of the lab again, damn it? It was Hugh, wasn’t it. That’s only funny the first 10 times, Hugh!

      1. Krieger! Krieger! Your clones have escaped, again!

        1. Quick question: is it murder if they are my own clones?

          1. Depends – do they have consciousness?

      2. We told you to lock it away, Epi. You know Hugh can’t help himself when it comes to Hitler clones. He’s like a moth to flame when it comes to that pallid, lab-grown skin.

    2. It’s really amusing when Team Blue trolls pose as Nazis.

      1. Stormfront is overwhelmingly GOP.

        I waded into that cesspool a couple of times.

        1. Cool story bro.

        2. Yeah, I’m sure Stormfront ain’t too keen on the GOP either – hating them less than the Dems doesn’t mean they’re big on them.

          1. You just know the Louisiana members of Stormfront were ecstatic to vote for Piyush Jindal as governor.

            1. And they must have loved it when Bush 2 appointed Powell and Rice.

            2. I can just see the pictures on the wall of the Stormfront HQ.

              Old pictures documenting the role racism has played in elevating the white race to its pinnacle.

              Old time politicians like

              John C. Calhoun
              Stephen Douglas
              William Fulbright
              Al Gore Sr.
              Robert Byrd

              Democrats to a man.

              1. Fuck Democrats back then and now too.

                Who gives a shit? I know all the racist filth has jumped to the GOP since Reagan/Bush made denying voting privileges to blacks a priority.

                And Lee Atwater – the top ratfucker. He died contrite and young of brain cancer for his ratfucking ways.

                I saw him with his swollen head the size of a basketball. He died a disgraced puke-filled GOP ratfucking Bushpig all the way.

                1. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

                2. the top ratfucker

                  wait…

                  Is Shrike Weigel’s sock puppet?

                  Drunk sock puppet?

        3. Uh, yeah, sure it is. Show me this Nazi Republicans, if you can. I think you’ll have an easier time finding commy Democrats.

          1. This is what they think of the GOP:

            http://img832.imageshack.us/im…..yranny.jpg

            1. Why do those little guys keep moving under his boots?

              1. Because – JEWS!

    3. That’s a spci meat-a-ball!

    4. What’s a spci? Is that like one of those White Hispanics that killed Trayvon before morphing into a Korean shopkeeper?

    5. You uh, you know that Hitler was a big fan of aryans Right? Most white people are not aryans.

      1. That isn’t accurate.

        1. What, that most of us are a long way from any possible Aryan root? I mean, if you go far enough back I can call myself African.

          Or that Hitler had a thing for Aryans?

          1. Aryan means Indo-European. Most Whites are Indo-European.

          2. I think you need to translate your question into an Indo-Iranian language, like Romani, for him to understand it.

          3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race

            In 19th century physical anthropology, represented by some[who?] as being scientific racism, the “Aryan race” was defined as the subgroup of the Caucasian (or Europid) race consisting of the native speakers of Indo-European languages descended from the original Proto-Indo-Europeans, that in modern times reside in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Anglo-America, Canada, Russia, South Africa, Latin America, Afghanistan, Iran, Armenia, Maldives, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tajikistan, Northern India, and Nepal.[12]

            If that’s correct, it seems like most whites are aryan.

            1. Well, fast-forwarding to the 21st century, the migration of the “Aryan” or Indo-Iranian languages matches up nicely with the migration of the R1a1a halpogroup. You’ll notice that much of Western Europe isn’t on that map.

            2. That’s a pretty big “if”

              1. Is it? That was my understanding before checking the Wiki.

                1. That’s the problem with using vague and outdated terms. It’s like still doing physics using the theory of the luminiferous aether. Yeah, it worked up to a certain point; however, science was only able to go so far until our understanding of relativity was such that we had no need to use aether theory any longer.

                  Likewise, the racial classification of 19th century, mostly Prussian, anthropologists and linguists “worked” to advance understanding of humans, (and at times didn’t work at all, the concept of an “Aryan” race was a misunderstanding of Max Muller’s linguistic theories concerning the origins of Indo-European languages. As Muller, the guy who first used the term “Aryan”, himself said “an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar … the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians.

                  Now we have understanding of clades and halpogroups, which give a much more accurate description of humanity.

                  1. Agammamon said “Most white people are not aryans.”

                    It’s true that aryan has been a useless term since it’s inception, but that’s irrelevant to whether that statement is true.

                    OT: I saw you repeat your claim that the Irish weren’t white. The last time I challenged you on that, your strongest claim was something like “I wouldn’t be surprised if some Irish in Boston weren’t considered white.” Did you learn of specific examples since then?

                    1. (Not HM obviously) I don’t think it’s that the Irish weren’t considered white, but that there wasn’t a conception of a unified white race that included all of the peoples (Europeans and depending on who you talk to, certain non-Europeans) that today are generally included in that category. There were plenty of people that thought that Irish people were of an inferior race compared to Nordic peoples, even if the Irish had white skin.

                    2. Racialists like Stoddard and Grant were quite explicit. The Irish weren’t Nordic, but they were white. I’ve asked Bailey and HM to provide an example of an Irish being judged “non-white.” In the absence of a single example suggesting otherwise, I’m judging them full of shit.

                      There were plenty of people that thought that Irish people were of an inferior race compared to Nordic peoples, even if the Irish had white skin.

                      Yes, and there were plenty of people who thought the same of the Chinese even though they had paler skin than some Euros. And yet there’s no shortage of proof that they were considered non-white.

            3. Afghanistan, Iran, Armenia, Maldives, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tajikistan, Northern India, and Nepal

              Most Persians as well.

    6. hey Vig.

      The Tea Party is this way —- freerepublic.com

      1. Actually, he’d be a better fit in left-wing outlets.

        They’ll get him there.

        1. Yeah, the Freepers would welcome him with open arms.

          1. Obama was popular with the white supremacists. But keep telling yourself otherwise.

    7. Ah.

    8. This is a pretty stupendous racist sockpuppet. It goes a little too far, but if it toned it back just a little bit it would be indistinguishable from American.

      1. Yeah, if this was someone pretending to be American, I give them a C-. Too overtly racist.

  25. Early round Djoker matches aren’t exciting, ESPN

  26. I was thinking it might be fun to go to a lefty board and spout Marxism. Then I realized they’d just agree with me.

  27. Just for fun, I used Google Translate to render “Born to be Wild” into Latin. For extra amusement, translate it back again.

    Aliquam cursus tuos motor
    Caput in via
    Exspectantes adventum
    Et quidquid obviam venerit,
    Ita factum est, ut vadam, carissime;
    Concubitus Tolle mundi,
    Ignis tormenta, simul cum omnibus
    Et in tempore dissipat,

    Sicut ignis, et fumus,
    Gravis metalli tonitrua
    Cursus in ventum
    Et subter me affectum
    Ita factum est, ut vadam, carissime;
    Concubitus Tolle mundi,
    Ignis tormenta, simul cum omnibus
    Et in tempore dissipat,

    Sicut se habet cum puer
    Nati natus esse feros
    Possumus ascendere
    Non vult mori

    Nata esse feros
    Nata esse feros

    1. ? Sacrum omne semen

      ? Bonum omne semen

      ? si in semine est regio

      ? Deus per fuerit iratus

      1. Pie Jesu Domine,

        dona eis requiem.

        Dona eis requiem sempiternam.

        [BONK!]

      2. Nantucket Erat olim ab homine…

    2. Look at all the trouble Obama got when he did the same thing.

    3. It’s pretty much gibberish. The first two lines translate as “Something race/journey your “motor” [which isn’t a Latin word, of course]/Head (as in your cranium) in the road”

      1. I’m going to have to stay after class, aren’t I? Let me guess…write it correctly on the wall 1,000 times?

        Here’s what I got when I retranslated:

        Maybe your motor running
        The head on the road
        Looking for adventure
        And whatever comes
        So it was, that I should go, my dearest friend;
        Intercourse Take the world
        Fire engines, together with all
        At the time explode

        As the fire and smoke
        Heavy metal thunder
        Courses in the wind
        And I feeling
        So it was, that I should go, my dearest friend;
        Intercourse Take the world
        Fire engines, together with all
        At the time explode

        As it is with boy
        Son born to be wild
        we can go up
        No one wants to die

        She was born to be wild
        She was born to be wild

        1. Let me guess…write it correctly on the wall 1,000 times?

          That gives me bad memories of Mrs. Donovan, and “verb camp”.

          1. Did she threaten to cut your balls off if it wasn’t done by sundown?

              1. Is that what happened to your balls?

                1. Is that what happened to your balls?

                  No, that was due to a bar bet I lost in some dive near Georgetown, Malaysia.

        2. Would you like to suck my cock
          Berzerker!

          Would like to making fuck
          Berzerker!

    4. Is it a clue to the location of the Holy Grail?

      1. Only the penitent man shall pass!

      2. Its in Castle Auuuugh!

  28. “Switzerland is taking a new tack to protect its prized banking secrecy ? one that could undermine the efforts of U.S. tax authorities to snag tax evaders stashing funds offshore.

    “The country, which bars citizens from dishing banking secrets to foreign governments, is probing former Swiss banker Renzo Gadola for spilling the beans on wealthy Americans with hidden bank accounts, according to the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/…..z2qR7W6VoF

  29. I’m becoming a big fan of Mitch Daniels.

    Like, until recently, the K-12 education system, American higher ed has been immune from close examination of its results, as reflected in value compared with price. It has been taken for granted that a college diploma, almost any diploma, was a prerequisite to the best-paying and most satisfying careers, or that historic career advantages would unquestionably persist in future generations. But with a majority of recent graduates either unemployed or working at jobs that do not require a college degree, and with an estimated 45 percent of them living with parents rather than independently, these assumptions are being rethought. A number of new analyses and rankings are emerging, purporting to tell potential students the extent to which a diploma in a given discipline, and/or from a given school, is truly worth its asking price.

    1. Two of the new questions posed to higher education these days are 1) Why does it take so long for students to fulfill their graduation requirements? and 2) Why can’t students progress at their own rate instead of being tied to an historic semester calendar? Often, the matter is put more directly: Why can’t at least some degrees be completed in less than the traditional four years, and why can’t students move ahead as soon as they have demonstrated their mastery, or “competency” of a subject, rather than wait for an arbitrary testing date?

      These are not radical notions. In Europe, degrees are often earned in three versus four years, and the practice is beginning to spread here in the U.S. Many of the new entrants in our market are structured completely around a competency-based model, in which students can move as fast as their ability and diligence will permit, reducing time to degree and cost as they do so.

      Clearly, much of what we teach at Purdue will not lend itself to these emerging practices. But if and where they could apply, we should be a leader and not a laggard in devising and applying them.

      Pretty much everything he says in that letter is spot on.

      1. You become a fan boy too easily.

        1. That insult just made me a big fan of yours, Tman.

          1. Late night folks gotta represent.

            We insult each other the best. Cause you AM link pussies are sober.

      2. As someone who majored in “much of what we teach at Purdue”, fuck you Mitch Daniels. The logic of an English major taking art electives is about as fuzzy as the logic of majoring in English at all. But I’m an engineer and I can say with absolute certainty that the only thing that 20 page paper on cave art accomplished was a slightly diminished capacity for avoiding educrat genocide.

        1. Given that he seems to be arguing in favor of allowing greater flexibility to students, shouldn’t you be happy that future students might not have to write that 20 page paper on cave art? He seems to be agreeing with you.

          1. “Clearly, much of what we teach at Purdue will not lend itself to these emerging practices.”

            I don’t know how this could be more clear.

          2. The problem – he’s advocating the destruction of the ‘liberal arts college’, the thing that we’re told over and over will make you a ‘well-rounded’ individual in favor of the ‘voctech’ model where you get in, concentrate on the job skills you want (even if they are in English Composition) and then get out.

            Voctech has a stigma in this country and I can see this being opposed tooth and nail.

            1. I just skimmed the whole thing. It’s standard president-speak with extra bright applause lights. There’s no advocating destruction here.

  30. I just got around to looking at the NSA Spy Catalog. Holy shit! The most striking thing about some of those devices is the unit cost. One would assume that the devices have to be produced on a pretty large scale to be that cheap.

  31. No charges will be filed against Torrance cop who shot up a man in his truck during Dorner manhunt

    No criminal charges will be filed against a Torrance police officer who mistakenly opened fire on an innocent man’s pickup truck during the manhunt for cop-turned-killer Christopher Dorner.

    Officer Brian McGee rammed David Perdue’s truck with his patrol car, then fired three shots through the driver’s side window. Perdue wasn’t hit but his truck was riddled with bullets. He’s suing the city and officers involved in the shooting, saying he suffered a concussion when his truck’s airbag opened and that he has lingering physical and emotional problems.

    Prosecutors concluded McGee’s actions were justified.

    “McGee’s actions are analyzed based on the totality of circumstances, which include McGee’s knowledge of Dorner’s previous threats and actions in the days and hours preceding these events, which gave rise to an atmosphere of fear and extreme anticipation,” according to Deputy District Attorney Geoffrey Rendon. “Those circumstances created a situation in which a reasonable mistake of fact, namely that Dorner was driving the truck, nearly resulted in a horrific tragedy.

    Totality of circs! You know, just like anyone of us who made that mistake would get.

    1. “he has lingering physical and emotional problems”
      Yep, that’ll happen when someone tries to murder you.

      1. I hate when that happens

  32. Between evolution, PB, and faux-Merkin, I can smell the shit on this thread through my screen.

    1. Been a lot of shittin’ up the threads lately.

      These are dark times in the kingdom…

      1. I hope none of us get cholera…

        …well, maybe Merkin.

  33. Dick Durbin and other Senate Democrats write letter to the Golden Globes protesting that e-cigs were shown during the broadcast

    Throughout the country and the world, people tune in to watch fashionable actors on the red carpet, enjoy the show, and root for their favorite films and actors. Unfortunately, this year, many young viewers saw notable displays of e-cigarette use throughout the awards show, including the opening monologue and repeated shots of celebrities smoking e-cigarettes. In light of studies showing that exposure to on-screen smoking is a major contributor to smoking initiation among youth, we are troubled that these images glamorize smoking and serve as celebrity endorsements that could encourage young fans to begin smoking traditional cigarettes or e-cigarettes.

    [snip] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), e-cigarette use is growing rapidly. Between 2010 and 2011, the number of U.S. adults who have tried e-cigarettes doubled. Further, a CDC study released in September 2013 found that in just one year, from 2011 to 2012, the percentage of high school students who have ever used e-cigarettes more than doubled from 4.7 percent to 10 percent.

    [snip]E-cigarettes are currently not required to be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for evaluation or approval.

    Wow.

    1. Fun conversation at the bar tonight:

      Alcohol is way WAY WAY more of a “gateway drug” than marijuana.

      Seriously.

      People make way worse drug decisions drunk than they do after getting stoned.

      But yeah, E-cigs, terrible. Ban em.

  34. OBTW, drugs in sports. Don’t care. The wringing of hands, “it affects the outcome!”, “what about teh stats an’ recurdssz?!!1!” FUCK I do not care. It’s games, people. Sports. Pro sports. Playa’s gonna play. ARod may be a dillrod, but I don’t give a shit that he (nor Clemnes, noe McGuire, nor Sosa, nor anyone else) supposedly did HGH, ‘roids or anything else. Don’t care.

    And SLD about “it’s baseball’s rules, he broke them, yada yada” – separate issue I acknowledge.

    Unfortunately, I know the media will never STFU about it, so I have to be alert to change channels when assholes start pontificating about it – cause lord knows there’s no debate. Drugs r bad, mmmkay?

    1. “Unfortunately, I know the media will never STFU about it, so I have to be alert to change channels when assholes start pontificating about it”

      I used to think it was worse when congress, for pete’s sake, started whingeing about it.
      Now I don’t; it keeps them distracted and avoids them passing another O-care or some such foolishness.
      So, while I agree it doesn’t matter whether someone eats Wheaties or snorts coke, at least it keeps congress from causing more harm.

    2. Are you against that new rule preventing punt blockers from jumping over shielders?

    3. Since you don’t care, you’ll be perfectly fine with most fans’ opinion that they don’t want it in sports? Yeah?

    1. Let’s talk about this first:
      http://deadspin.com/comcast-sp…..1501633812

      Watch the first video

      1. Whole lot of video not found.

        1. Link works on my end. Long story short: Chi Cubs got a new “kid friendly” mascot this week, a bear of some kind that doesn’t wear pants. Fans initiated a protest, and obscene renditions of the mascot were uploaded to the internet. Somehow, on of these accidentally made it into a live news segment.

      2. It works fine for me. Of course that wasn’t the actual mascot, no one on the Chicago Cubs have any balls.

      3. try this: http://deadspin.com/comcast-sp…..socialflow

        1. HORRIFYING

          1. Pedobear’s cousin – anal-rape bear.

    2. Funny, I’m much drunker for some reason.

      1. I’m right behind you. I just need to run to the store to pick up some beef short ribs and a 6 pack of IPAs.

    3. Francisco d Anconia|1.14.14 @ 11:50PM|#
      “INDEPENDENTS ASSEMBLE!”

      Long nights up there, eh?

  35. The Velveeta shortage is a lie.

  36. Since no one is watching this late they should all do the show pants-less.

    1. I do life pants-less.

      1. Ironic!

  37. The PenIs mightier…

  38. Can’t boars have teets if they are female?

    1. I think she said tits on a board.

    2. boar

      3. An uncastrated domestic male pig

      1. Ah. Thank you. I hate filing away misheard idioms.

      2. I guess that works, but tits on a bull is a more accurate and less ambiguous simile.

        1. It’s an old saying. My dad used that when I was a kid.

  39. Jesus, John is still arguing up-thread.

    1. I apologize for starting this discussion way back in the PM links by linking the article about evolution vs intelligent design.

      1. I missed this whole thing today, what with the drinking and working.

        Evolution? Really?

        1. Some guy in The New Republic wrote an article critiquing Francis Collins’ case for intelligent design via human morality.

          It wasn’t even a mean-spirited atheist-bashing-Christian article since Collins has respect in the scientific community, which is why I linked it.

          I only had one thing to say before John single-handedly starting debating against Irish, Sevo, Heroic Mulatto and some others.

          1. So was the village saved?

      2. get your snow hookers with free gloves and splooge bag!

      3. You couldn’t have known.

        1. Yeah, it’s not like it was an article about rabbis, who circumcise their children while preparing deep dish pizza, claiming that atheism is a religion.

          1. We’ve empirically proven that evolution is a fast way to make large sections of multiple threads an unreadable wasteland.

            Science has been done today!

      4. Yeah, you should feel bad.

  40. Is Christie really a “rockstar” in the GOP?

    1. No – rock stars are spoiled, entitled, petulant, obnoxious assholes, always yielding to their baser appetites.

      1. So you mean Yes?

        1. Yes

  41. At least the GOP guy made a good point about the pot calling the kettle blac…the same color, with regard to Christie and Obama’s know-nothing leadership.

  42. Nice! Little Feat as the music to commercial. Someone running this show was alive in the 70s.

  43. Eat a bag of Dickins?

    Did I hear that right?

    1. I bet she likes a great big Dickens’ Cider.

  44. There’s something about Bernard that reminds me of Scott Thompson from Kids in the Hall.

  45. The Dem is a straight up liar.

    1. as opposed to?

  46. Go Kmele! Silence the Spin Doctors!

  47. A “shut your piehole” from Kennedy. Nice. And Kennedy says Clinton is weak!

    1. I didn’t even hear that story about Hillary not being seen in public because she had a tired.

  48. that is a good question , where did the notion of the video even come from?

    1. The Obama administration.

      1. i mean within the administration, how was the video even on their radar?

    2. Media reports after the riots and protests against US embassies throughout the Middle East.

      But according to the father of one of the Navy SEALs killed, Hillary Clinton personally promised him that she would make sure the filmmaker was prosecuted.

    3. There were some real protests going on about the video, but what happened in Benghazi had absolutely nothing to do with it.

      1. At least they didn’t go with their other excuse, that the rioters were denouncing the cancellationnof Firefly

  49. Matt loves Cartman’s mom.

    1. And Paul Ryan’s blue eyes.

  50. Shouldn’t it be the Pope-pod?

  51. They censor douchebag?

  52. BOOK PLUG

  53. Come on guys, I’m doing my part.

    1. Were you a better commenter you’d be doing everyone else’s part too.

    2. So was John upthread.

  54. If you’ve skipped to the bottom of the thread you owe it to yourself to scroll way up and enjoy commenter John’s epic takedown of genetic determinism. I’m not promising it is pretty.

    1. After 10 posts, it just becomes masturbating in public…

      No, thank you!

      1. You read ten of them?

        1. While masturbating.

  55. She is on fire tonight

  56. I enjoyed that segment. Also I’m drinking a manhattan so I’m doing my part.

  57. On this episode, I learned that Welch is a girl drink drunk who loves him some German pornography.

    1. Wait, I missed the German porn reference.

      1. She said he likes schiesse porn. Hence he likes Cartman’s mom.

  58. Ecuador drinks more whiskey than the USA? Maybe it’s time to grant the the wife’s wish to go to the Galapagoes.

    1. My uncle did it last summer after his retirement. Wasn’t his idea either, but he said it was the trip of a lifetime.

    2. From what I hear, they may have more to drink *about.*

    3. I thought it was Uruguay

      1. Stash all or your savings in Bitcoins and move your family to Uruguay. Don’t tell me later you didn’t heed my advice.

  59. It’s been a while since I had a whiskey

  60. Why do people like Justin Bieber?

    1. because they are 15 year old girls?

      1. And they are sociopaths given how vicious they get on social media defending Bieber and other groups like One Direction.

        1. Am I to understand that you, while impersonating Ryan Gosling, interact with 15 year old girls on social media?

          1. I wont’ dignify that with a response.

            1. Ah the celebrity yes.

              1. My new theory is that he might actually be Ryan Gosling.

    2. Cause he’s hot.

      Or so someone told me?

  61. Lardashians? Love it

  62. What is this world coming to when celebrities have their rights violated like some average schmo?

  63. The Independents: Taking a principled stand on behalf of Justin Bieber’s constitutional rights.

  64. So Welch is a Beasties aficionado.

  65. Quite the shift there.

  66. “Did the cops go to far?”

    1. All within procedure. Give them their jobs back!

  67. Sokolove law…

    Ambulance chasing shitbags.

    1. You’ve got that right FdA

      1. My father in law turned him away from the door at Mass General. And he had the backing of the legal staff. Of course, Sokolove sued.

  68. How the hell did they walk?

  69. One cop wants his job back; the other apparently has yet to recover from the scraped elbow he suffered in the line of duty.

  70. Why do they have a question mark after “Injustice in California”. Shouldn’t it be an explanation point?

    1. It’s times like these I’m glad I’m nit watching.

      1. Is that like bird watching only with body vermin?

        1. I imagine a magnifying glass and a metal comb as tools of the hobby

  71. Oh, and you can stop showing the video of officer Ramos murdering Kelly Thomas. We know he murdered him.

    1. Murder is a legal term. Officer Ramos merely beat Ctz. Thomas to death.

      Many libertarians of my acquaintance and of whom I do not approve strongly advocate that no one murder Officer Ramos in recompense, but rather beat him to death in an act of justified violence. Which would, by definition, not entail murdering him.

      1. As long as officer ramos dies– like Kelly Thomas– from lack of oxygen to the brain, it’s all cricket!

  72. Jesus Christ, put cuffs on his hands, cuffs on his ankles… where’s he gonna go?

  73. Wow, suddenly no love for jury nullificatin’ from the libertarians.

    1. So your theory is that the jury knew the defendants were guilty but decided not to convict?

      Because I’m pretty sure juries don’t think laws against homicide are unjust. But in this case they probably bought into the defense that Thomas was resisting and his death was partially his fault for resisting.

    2. As one of the libertarians here who’s been very skeptical (and I’m almost ashamed to say ‘agree with you’) on jury nullification, this really has little to do with nullification.

      No one on the jury saw any unjust law, they were apparently– a bit like you, and didn’t really see anything wrong with that level of force by Team Thin Blue Line.

      1. No one on the jury saw any unjust law, they were apparently– a bit like you, and didn’t really see anything wrong with that level of force by Team Thin Blue Line.

        EXACTLY!

        Which was pointed out to him multiple times yesterday, yet he persists in being a fucking idiot.

  74. Why would anyone want to have a relationship with Kanye West?

    1. You would know if you were a gay fish.

      1. Well Jesse is half-way there….I won’t say which half.

    2. Lou Reed offered a positive review of a Kayne West album.

      http://www.rollingstone.com/mu…..s-20130702

      No ones really knows what happened to Rachel, Lou Reed’s companion when he wrote the Coney Island Baby.

    1. If you say it in the context of a mistake, my grandparents would be OK with it.

    1. The following infomercial is quite pleasant. In my market segment, it’s Pat Boone.

      1. Yeah, I was just thinking this wouldn’t be bad to have. I like some of that old stuff.

        1. It’s putting me to sleep, and dinner’s still in the oven for another hour.

          1. Their target demographic isn’t aware of internet piracy.

  75. Midnight obviously gets Kennedy’s juices flowing

  76. even scarier. Pat Boone.

    1. Pat Booner?

  77. Dude really does seem to know whts going on!

    http://www.AnonGlobal.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.