eton

After MiB kills the two hosts that just killed a board member, an injured MiB stumbles onto the porch and says "There you go buddy". Shortly after MiB walks by, Ned jerks his head up really quick motion, in what I would say is an unnatural movement for a horse. I don't think it necessarily means anything, as like with Bernard maybe Ned's software is somewhat corrupted or something. I dunno, just a small thing I saw that I haven't seen anyone post about so wanted to see what others thought.

So I don't know the answer to this, but I'm just wondering about other redditors speculation. I don't know a ton about the business of show renewals, but at what point should Comedy Central be announcing some sort of decision? Does anybody know what timeline that Colbert was renewed on? I searched and found that Colbert was originally ordered up for an 8 week pilot series. I couldn't find any other information about Colbert's timeline. Also, at what point does no news from Comedy Central kind of start speaking for itself? Has that point passed already?

"I think the principle [sic] fallacy of not just to the so-called New Atheists, but I think of a lot of critics of religion, is that they believe that people derive their values, their morals, from their religion. That, as every scholar of religion in the world will tell you, is false. People don’t derive their values from their religion—they bring their values to their religion." http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/reza-aslan-on-what-the-new-atheists-get-wrong.html

vs.

"In the case of Bibeau, his violent behavior could have been influenced as much by his religious beliefs as by his documented mental problems, his extensive criminal past or his history of drug addiction." http://www.cn

Involves atheism so I figured I'd post here.

So I think it is interesting how many progressives mockingly use the hashtag #notallmen to support feminism, but are now using the same argument in the context of defending Islam, 'not all Muslims are ...'

I just think they are trying to have it both ways. I guess they can, it is just hypocritical and biased, ie it is okay to use if it supports our argument.

EDIT: so I've been told that I'm not a good thinker. Fair enough, I appreciate the input, and I realize I could be wrong. Also, here is a link about the #notallmen I was referring to. http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/

To clarify, I'm sayi

So in the past few weeks there has been much discussion of the Maher & Harris vs Affleck exchange. It has been interesting seeing prominent atheists disagree about the topic.

I wanted to compose a list of where atheists stand* in this argument.

Islam is more harmful than other religions (when it comes to human rights violations, or have defended Maher/Harris)

• Bill Maher
• Sam Harris
• Ayaan Hirsi Ali
• Terry Firma
• Hemant Mehta

Islam is like any other religion (when it comes to human rights violations, or criticized Maher/Harris)

• Cenk Uygur
• Adam Ericksen
• CJ Werleman

If you have others who have chimed in, comment and I'll keep the list updated.

Edit: wrong word

There has been a ton of advertising and I noticed different themes overall. It will be interesting to see what the movie is actually like.

http://redcarpetcrash.com/judge-international-tv-spot/

vs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWAfhMYUs4M

vs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBB4mX9x8K4

vs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GeezXWBVIA

As in what would your opponent use to discredit you the most with...

http://imgur.com/ktBFKX4

I don't agree with r/MR on everything, but I think they make good points sometimes. I don't think they deserved to be put into the same column as holocaust deniers and found this to be an ad hominem attack on MRAs which this guy wasn't even one. It irks me that this particular heavily moderated blog says its moderating policies applies to everyone, when it clearly does not. If someone, for example, said feminists were similar to holocaust deniers, there would at least be a warning, probably deletion of the post, or at worst banned for that comment.

I was polite, I listened, I made my case. The mods will hear you out, but it is definitely understood who has the power, which is the reality. My case primarily is that the changes were abruptly, they apologize for the abrupt changes (not the actual new rules themselves, which is okay with me), but all the new rules remain. It just doesn't sit right with me. If the apology is sincere, then revert at least 1 of the new rules in a show of good faith. Then have a discussion forum or whatever they want on the proposed new rule. Then they can make changes after discussion, but at least make it appear like our opinion matters and it isn't just predetermined outcome. It was really a unique experie