Spike

But it was because they were children in the 60s and 70s (my mistake on the 50s part, I read it as ' examined children from 58 to 70')... They weren't children yesterday. I dislike these sort of studies as they abstain from context and only like at the correlation of two variables. What if one of these dumb kids was bullied by a group of different race kids and grew up to be racist? Being an idiot doesn't equate to racism, I want to know why idiots are more prone to hateful behaviour. Is it because they lack the capacity to emapthise with others? Is it because of environment? Culture? Experiences? Why does the inner-city Black America (I've read the least-educated, most racist and most homophobic) consistently vote Democratic, in opposition to this study? Some say 'ignorance is bliss' so why are the most ignorant peoples the most hateful? http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

I took that IQ test and got the same score from 9th grade. It was an official test and I had to sit down with some lady that specialised in testing 'gifted' children. Of course it was far longer and had a variety of tests as opposed to strictly pattern recognition. 131.

It's official. Africans are stupid; yet they vote democratic? Anybody that buys into bi-partisan politics is an idiot, including me, you and the entire spectrum. Your study was made in the 50s and 60s, it has no bearing on today's society and culture. Greeks also buggered young kids in Classical Antiquity and they are still honoured as some of the greatest philosophical minds of western history. https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html The left-wing peasants of Cambodia took all the wealthy and knowledgeable people out to the field and cut their heads off because Pol Pot wanted them to. Right-Winger is NOT synonymous with harsh criminal punishment, homophobia and racism. If that were the case then it would be impossible of Libertarianism to exist. Lefties in Russia murdered children because their parents were royalty. Lefties in France murdered thousands of people, tortured them to death. Lefties in China let millions of people starve to death. No side has a monopoly on 'being superior' to the other.

I've read people stating that Hazard is a Muslim and the reason for dips in form is due to fasting. I can't find a single source that states that he even is a Muslim. I've read reports that bloody Lionel Messi is a Mulism, despite having a Catholic cathedral tattooed over half of his body.

I always love this guy's videos. An ex-Muslim born in Pakistan but grew up in Canada.

The main issue is the discourse. People are nearly forced to believe someone is something because someone says it to be true. Transexuality isn't an issue, but the people that take advantage of it's new spotlight are. Well, with illegal immigrants over 70% are on government welfare, so yeah it does affect my pocket when I pay taxes (and I'm an immigrant, haha). I do get what you mean though.

I really cannot wrap my head around that logic. So he is racist because you say so? Having sex with and being in a relationship is different. Person 1: You're a white supremacist. Person 2: But my partner isn't white. Person 3: Doesn't matter, you are still a white supremacist.

What is he supposed to say? What is anyone supposed to say? What definitive proof can anyone give that they aren't racist besides denying it? 'Racist' is the catch-all term used by the media to 'pox' all that they don't agree with; to the point the word doesn't mean anything anymore. Do you honestly think Milo lies awake at night thinking; 'I HATE BLACKS, HOW CAN I RUIN BLACK LIVES' and then afterwards sucks on a black cock? If anything he has a slight racial bias towards black men because he is naturally more attracted to them.

I think in general, he is right. There are so many factors concerning sex around puberty that the lines of what is 'moral' and 'immoral' are blurred. IT is so dependent on the culture, person, orientation, emotional investment, motives, etc. A twenty year-old that sincerely enjoys the company of a fourteen year-old is very different from a twenty year-old that enjoys the company of a fourteen year-old because they are fourteen.

He needs to leave. A man with magic in his boots needs to display it every game.

Funny how that happens. This time last year he was a definite scapegoat.

@iseah100 What is your favourite type of mole? I'm partial to an 'Americanised' Oaxacan mole that my wife and I make on occasion. I want to try a black mole next.

Transsexualism is such a tiny niche that shouldn't get as much media coverage as it does. It isn't an issue for society at large, most people are so insulated in their own lives that transsexualism will never affect their lives. It's a private matter that should be discussed with one's doctors, not the congressman. TRANSEXUALISM AND BATHROOMS IS A NON-ISSUE. Would anyone even notice if this 'woman' walked into the women's bathroom? No they wouldn't because he looks like a woman and nobody would know or see their genitalia because bathrooms have stalls. This is a true trans-person and you'd never know just at a passing glance. The 'weirdos' Milo is (poorly) talking about are dudes in trenchcoats that merely say they are trans (you can't argue against it, 'HEY! You're not trans!' , isn't socially acceptable) so they can perve on some woman pissing. I also cringe when people call Milo 'alt-right'. He wrote some stupid editorial that wrongly classified the 'alt-right'. He is actually, as he says quite despised by the alt-right.

It's Fellaini's side career.

Gin and cider! Now that's a combo I'll have to avoid. Gin; I adore the stuff but it makes a grown man cry like Mick Jagger's 'Start Me Up'.

Cider is so English. It's considered quite feminine in Australia, like a pre-packaged vodka mixer. It's getting a better reputation stateside because craft breweries are starting to brew ciders that aren't Magners, Strongbow and Angry Orchard.

Should've signed Jarque when he had the chance.

I regret many of my bannings. Stalin would be ashamed of me.

He'd be play the same spots as Pedro, Willian and Hazard.

People are passionate of their religions, people do love their god(s) and people do devote their lives to spirituality. 'Passion' and 'passive' aren't mutually exclusive and 'passion' and 'extremist' aren't mutually inclusive. It is completely assumptive that young people aren't spiritual and only pay lip-service for their family's sake. Islam is different from the 'rest of us', it is different to Christianity, it is different to Judaism (since when were Jews considered 'us'?), it is different from Hindi, it is different to Shinto, and it is different from the western world. Orthodox Islam is incompatible with the 'West' as Orthodox Christianity (not the Greek schism) is incompatible with the 'Near-East', as the two religions exist opposite each other as the founding pillars of morality, science and philosophy. That isn't to say a Muslim couldn't adapt to certain areas 'West' or a Christian couldn't do the same in the 'Near-East', the individual isn't the argument but the overall principles. Spain, France and Italy are all countries that share the linguistic route of 'Romance' and share a long right history together but they are not the same: culturally, ethnically, and socially. To break it down even further each of the three nations has different native cultures, ethnicities and societies within itself. There is no love lost between the cultural and economic divide of north versus south in Italy; Castillan, Basque, and Catalan nationalism in Spain, and Occitan, Bretagne and French cultures in France. The nations aren't the same, the sub-groups aren't the same, the languages they speak aren't the same; despite them all sharing a similar and intertwined history. So if three nations are already divided by so much internally and externally what would make it so that two or more dividing and opposite religions are 'no different from the rest of us'? It is okay to generalise any culture, ethnic group, religious group, language group if their is empirical data and evidence to suggest certain ideals are the 'norm'. If we together study a random tribe in Polynesia and we noticed that out of the entire tribe 85% of the people engaged in cannibalism, it would be a fair statement to say that tribe are 'cannibals'; despite the 15% exception. Only when we accept a certain phenomenon as the 'truth' can we examine why it happens. For instance if we were to poll the Muslims of Tunisia and Bangladesh asked them the question 'Can suicide bombing be justified?' and Tunisia (population ~10,000,000) voted 5% yes and Bangladesh (~155,000,000) 47% yes, what would you say was the rule and the exception? Obviously the rule would be that Muslims don't agree with suicide bombing, because slightly more disagree than agree (that still leave nearly 80,000,000...); however what if we plopped those numbers next to America? Only 8% of American-Muslims agree with suicide bombing. I have no stats on the rest of the population but if we go with the hypothetical that they do not agree with suicide bombing than only 8% of 1% of the American population believe in suicide bombing, or 0.125%. Would you prefer one-hundred Tunisians immigrating to America or one-hundred Bangladeshis? Which of the two has a better chance of integrating? Which would be more likely perceived as 'no different from the rest of us'? Would you prefer a New Zealander immigrate to the UK or a Syrian? Or you could ask a Palestinian, would they prefer another Jew immigrating to Israel, or another Palestinian recovering their pre-1967 land? Their are degrees of difference; a Catholic Spaniard is different to a Protestant Englishman, but they are more similar to one another than to a Sunni Saudi. Ask yourself:' are my friends the exception or the rule?' 'Am I the exception to the rule of religious tolerance?' 'Is Luton the exception or the rule to increased Islamic immigration?' 'Is loss of cultural and national identity the exception or the rule to mass-immigration?' Communism, Marxism and Stalinsim is all the same. It's theft of property, loss of individuality and the promotion of the state above the individual. It abolishes the family as a unit, promotes absolute belief in the state and the forfeiture of democracy and personal rights.It is the murder and destruction of personal gain, ambition and achievement. It removes the incentive for progress, the yearning for more and self-improvement. Whatever you want to call it, Communism has stolen and killed more lives in the last 150 years than anything else. What right does any government have to possess my personal business, sell the assets and redistribute the wealth to everyone. What right has the lazy fool down the street have to the business I took a risk on, what right do they have to the fruits of my labour? http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/ http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/pg-2014-07-01-islamic-extremism-10/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/ http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/06/a-new-estimate-of-the-u-s-muslim-population/

Trump is a low hanging fruit anyway, anybody can make a Trump joke. South Park doesn't need to be strictly political and that's what I like about it. They lampoon everything from pop culture to history, I'd hate for them to be shoehorned into strict political satire. They've never taken sides and that is why I've watched every single episode of South Park and I've never felt like they've been preachy. I also love how they can take the ridiculousness of the world and put it through the lens of a child; 'Isn't every crime a hate crime?' I do miss some of the old style episodes that weren't really about anything. Like the 'Brown Note' or 'Scott Tenorman Must Die', it was just comedy gold without the need for commentary. That is probably the most difficult comedy to create.

I haven't seen Shaun of the Dead in years and to be honest I forgot about it. I'd add South Park but the older stuff. I'm not that into the direction the show has taken the last years. The plot serialisation just doesn't interest me.

My favourite comedies of the top of my head: Black Books Blackadder Seinfeld Red Dwarf It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia Futurama The Life of Brian The Holy Grail Hot Fuzz Dr. Strangelove Office Space