no, you see, "creepy" suggests it is echoing a sentiment that is invested with qualities of real ethical questions. Being as women do not victimize men by simply behaving as though they are entitled to the power society confers on them (since it doesn't) "your boyfriend" is actually in fact...ironic.

at a certain point, decency and compassion trump the applause that some people need to hear for being able to perform a basic search on the internet and feel affirmed and correct by finding a legal provision. To quote: "There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name…

I would say that in their zeal to fulfill the glorious Constitutional rights of the accused, the authorities in this case may have overstepped their bounds. And that it's entirely possible, in light of the nature of the crime, that provisions can be made to prevent further injury to the victim.

because it's totally impossible to write legislation that makes it possible for court proceedings to proceed remotely. My point is that actually, testifying in a courtroom is traumatic enough for any victim of rape, and that there are ways of insulating victims from that.

It's not like it's actually that difficult to go to wherever your client is to get depositions from them.

Do not question the spiral. Embrace the spiral. Do not doubt the spiral. Trust the spiral. The spiral loves you. Sacrifice, and give thanks.

I've heard too that Naples doesn't have an effective evacuation strategy.

I read the highlights and scrubbed through it so I must have missed that part. So yay me for being unintentionally on point.

Changing hearts and minds doesn't happen by restricting yourself regionally or ideologically to the places in which you can safely expect 99 percent of the people around you to agree with you. You change minds by making inroads into places where there is one dominant opposing paradigm. Now, Ham might've cottoned on to…

I'm saying, there is such a thing as bad publicity. Ham's move in inviting Nye for a debate is likely to have the reverse effect he's hoping for. Demagogues and snake oil salesmen don't profit from exposure, because it's an invitation for others to question their credibility. That's how religious cults persist- by…

I really disagree. He Murrow'd the hell out of him.

I think the reference to retardation is actually more offensive in that context. Let's not use "tard" at the end of a sentence as a derogatory term ever again. It's retro dumbass bro speak.

That's about as effective a publicity strategy as George Bush handing out shoes.

That and I wonder what delusion Ham is labouring under if he allows the opposition any agency whatsoever. That's how insular, cult religions survive, on a philosophy of exclusion.

The real question for me is whether or not he actually believes the nonsense he's spouting, because I can see the smug self satisfaction of having capitalized so successfully on a lie that you feel your success makes it true. Mark Driscoll is of the same mold. Any daytime televangelist follows the same powerfully…

Exactly. Nye is in no way damaged by this encounter. You know that every young mind in that audience is gaining something by seeing this debate because they are both getting a solid education in the principles behind scientific methodology and evidence, and how to identify a fraud at fifty paces.

No way. There is a reason that religious demagogues don't open up their pulpits to opposing views, because religion doesn't work if the religious begin to question the doctrine. When you open up your stage and allow someone with much more credibility and information than you, you've invited people to ask questions to…

Another thing, from scrubbing through, it looks to me as though Nye is providing much more in the way of specific evidence, and also in educational information, whereas Ham is spending his time trying to use the names and credentials of intellectually limited scientists to bolster his own credentials. Anybody with…

I don't think the point was to change his mindset. I think it was to demonstrate a clear contrast, and in that respect, going by the recap notes, it was very effectively demonstrated. The fatal flaw for Ken Ham is that his kind of "logic" only works when delivered via unchallenged pontificating. Bill Nye actually has…

I just read the recap and I have to disagree that there is not a useful purpose in staging debates like these, because it sets up a clear contrast for people who might be swayed one way or another. There are unfortunately a great number of those people and they are concentrated in the bible belt. It also creates a…