danielsangeo

What makes you say that, BTG?

Colorado.

I, for one, would like some elaboration on the nature of this ass-kicking.

I don't believe that America will default, to be honest. At the extreme deadline, like at 11:59:59, I fully believe the Congress will pull through and do what needs to be done (raising the debt ceiling, whatevs). It might be a half-assed temporary half-measure while the Congress piddles and whines, but eventually, the debt limit will be raised and we'll go on like before. It's just the Repubs playing politics with the debt and, in my opinion, are running in direct contravention of the United States Constitution here. The Dems are bending over backwards to cut spending but the Repubs are crossing their arms like a spoiled child and sticking their thumb in all our eyes by not even giving the tiniest bit of compromise the Dems' way. But that's a discussion for another time and I'll just say this: We'll be okay. The debt ceiling will eventually be raised as it always has been and we'll go on.

If I knew how to use Blender better, I'd make a particle emitter emit particle bats.

And 37. Thanks for your patience!

And here's 36.

Well, I got a bit behind with a vacation and other stuff but I'm caught up now with episodes 35-37 of Freeman's Mind. Here's Episode 35. As always, any errors and such, please let me know. Thanks! EDIT: Crap; I accidentally uploaded the wrong subtitle file (the previous one was a work in progress). I uploaded the correct one this time. My apologies, folks.

Could I see this "peer-review evidence that it's possible humans are not causing it"?

Can you please tell me how laissez-faire capitalism works in a completely state-free (non-statist) system? By what means do you have to agree upon the value of something (item, service, etc) without government? If I do something (conduct a service, build a product, etc) and it's worth X, but then someone else says that the value of that good/service/etc is less than X, does that mean that the value of the good/service/etc is not fixed? Let's say I were to mow someone's lawn. We mutually agree that the value of my service is 20-strips of green paper. So, I mow the lawn and take my 20-strips to, let's say an electronics store. There is an item I want. But the electronics store says that the 20-strips of green paper I have are actually just worth 10-strips of paper and that the item which costs 20-strips of paper is, therefore, out of my reach. But then, someone else comes in, with 20-strips of identical green paper, and the store owner tells this person that his 20-strips is valued at 20-strips and gives it to the person. By what measure do I have to file a grievance with the store owner? Let's say that I'm an atheist and the other customer is a Christian and the store owner will only sell to Christians. As soon as you introduce a third party, such as an arbitrator, you are introducing a statist system so you can't have an arbitrator.

No one is saying that vestigial organs don't have any function whatsoever. However, that does not mean that vestigial organs are not proof of evolution. Even disappearing body parts, such as tails, continue to have purpose and function until they're completely gone.

I went through Episode 16 and here's my opinion: Lines 2-5: The first four sentences are actually two sentences (the "Man, I'm a VIP" line ends in a semicolon, not a period). Line 9: "All things considered, I think" not "I thing". Line 10: "Hah!" or "Ha!" instead of "Ah!" Line 29: "cardboard" not "cartboard". Between lines 30 and 31 (optional): He's whistling the song "The Man on the Flying Trapeze". You can add this or not. Line 33: "hang glider" not "hand glider". Line 41: "defense" not "defence". Ross said earlier that he'd like to have subtitles in American English. But, I'll let Ross decide on that one. Line 49: "huh" not "uh". Line 55: "You're a parasite" not "You're parasites" Line 56: "Oh" not "Uh" Between lines 59 and 60 (optional): He's whistling the Super Mario Brothers theme. You can add this or not. Line 61: "blue-collar worker" not "blue-collar workers" Between lines 62 and 63 (optional): He's whistling the Super Mario Brothers underground theme. Line 71: "I'll be without a throne or heir, all because of this stupid dungeon!" Line 74: "treasure" not "treasures" Line 80: "Whoa whoa whoa, I'm supposed to be the stalker, not you!" Line 82: "Perfect." Line 94: "realistically" not "realisticly" Line 116: "witnesses" not "witness" Line 117: "wood shop" not "woodchop" Line 124: "edible" not "eatable" Sorry if it seemed like a long list. It's just my perfectionist ways coming out. Thanks for making this!

I would like to point out that Windows users can play MP4s easily and it's my preferred format as a Windows user myself. However, I'm not going to be helpful at all and state that whatever format y'all settle upon, I will be happy. I just prefer MP4 myself.

I didn't say I'd use any military forces, I said I'd do it personally. Retains the Anarchy. I didn't say the use of military forces, either. You are expelling someone else. That is a form of government. So, expel yourself. This is why an anarchic system can never work. It requires a governmental-style force to keep the anarchy and, in doing so, would paradoxically destroy itself in the process.

What do werewolves have to do with anything? You're claiming that it goes against reality, but you have yet to prove that reality conforms to your idea of it. I bring up werewolves because it goes against reality like a horse giving birth to a duck, which is evidently what you want. Nope. Don't have to prove it's impossible. You have to prove it's possible. Already told you, that is inaccurate. Prove that that is a valid reference. Did you want me to school you in elementary school biology? Adaptation is proven, Evolution a theory that multiple adaptations might produce another species if the adaptations are permanent... They rarely (if ever) are permanent. Prove it. You still haven't proven it. What, precisely, would you like? Bible, 6000 years of history stored there. The most resourced book in history. Contains more history facts for the covered eras supported by outside documents than any other book. [citation needed]

It's easier to blame video games, though. What do you think would attract more viewers (hence more advertising dollars): "Teen Obsessed With Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Kills Six" "Teen Obsessed With Hot Pockets Kills Six"

Oh, so you're omniscient then? Nope. But, like werewolves, unless you have evidence.... So? You have to prove that it's impossible for it to occur, or you have no supporting evidence for that aspect of your theory. No. I did not make a claim. I made a disclaim. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the disclaimant. I have already proved evolution. It is a fact. Plain and simple. And I can prove it again and again and again. You want evidence of evolution? Look in a mirror. You want to see what a transitional species looks like? Look in a mirror. Adaptation is the way evolution happens. Without adaptation, evolution could not happen. With adaptations of adaptations of adaptation, evolution happens. That's just reality. Like heat conductivity, gravity, and germs, evolution exists. Now, teach it in science class. Next up: More excuses why no evidence is going to be provided for creationism.

So you're saying that because it goes against Evolution it can't happen? No, I'm saying that it goes against reality. Now, if you have evidence of it happening.... Yes you do... You made the claim that it cannot happen. That is a negative. See the word "not"?

What proof do you have of that? Because that would be the antithesis of the theory of evolution. If you could find two distinct genera merging into one species, that would falsify the theory of evolution. It just doesn't happen like a man doesn't become a wolf under the light of the full moon. It just doesn't happen. And no, we don't have to prove a negative.

I voted "no" because the media doesn't have a bias against video games, like Doom said. They have a bias towards sensationalism. Video games are easy target.

What would give YOU the right to expel a "governmentalist"? Isn't that a form of government?

I don't understand what you mean by this. It's not a sub-species. It's a NEW species. As in, the new species will not mate with the old species. A horse will not be able to mate with a duck. They're two different species. What, exactly, are you looking for, BTG? A horse giving birth to a duck? Because that's not what the theory of evolution says and would, in fact, falsify the theory of evolution.

Evolution changes the species, adaptation changes the individual. If that's the case, then evolution (change of species) has been observed.

Morphine for instance. "Major fracture detected. Automatic medical systems engaged. Morphine administered."

What do you think is the difference between evolution and adaptation?