Hurlshort

Heh, the Angry Birds anti-immigration breakdown was pretty well done. This one is more far-fetched.

Roofles

I'd say Cosby had a much better reputation than Clinton before the accusations. Bill Cosby was America's Dad. Any President is going to be a somewhat divisive figure, particularly in the current climate. Also I'm not sure how you argue Hillary is in the shadows.

Also, I've always viewed the Clintons as a political marriage. They stay together because it is best for their careers. That isn't a new concept. The Cosby's don't have that going for them. You can argue that Cosby's wife stayed through this because of his reputation, but it is still a very different scenario.

Let's be fair, if the only person accusing Cosby was Janice Dickinson, this would be tabloid fodder and everyone would ignore it. The reason Cosby has fallen so quickly is because there is a long list of women coming forward and accusing him, and they all tell the same disturbing MO. The case still needs to be tried with evidence weighed, but it looks very bad. Clinton has a long list of affairs, but only one has accused him of rape. If you want to compare him to Cosby, I think you need more than that. He may be a scumbag, but there does not seem to be a history of assault on women. My first instinct to to believe Juanita Broadrick and throw the book at Clinton, but I do find it troubling that such a serial philanderer does not have more accusations. As Ganrich pointed out, it is a different case with the wives. Both seem to be willing to endure some pretty tough circumstances. However there seems to be evidence that Cosby's wife was not only aware of assault, but may have helped cover it up (and enabled it to continue.) That's a huge distinction as well.

There is a pretty big line between adultery and assault.

There are 5 reviews so far, so I wouldn't exactly call it a slaughter...yet. But honestly I don't think you need (or expect) a bunch of rave reviews to make this worth watching. If it is an entertaining adventure that pays tribute to a pretty geeky property, it will make audiences happy. Angry Birds is the bigger surprise. Might be the most successful video game movie ever. Edit: I read the Variety review. The writer makes a big deal about the fact that WoW has declined from 10 million subs to 5 million subs, as if that is a knock on the property. It's a 10 year old game with 5 million subs, that is basically the most successful game lifespan ever. It was hard to take them seriously after that. I can see the movie sucking, or being too niche, but lets not lead with a dumb argument about the game's success.

I wonder how this affects the legacy of the Warriors? They established a new win record in the regular season, but now they may not even make the finals. I think it is mitigated a bit by the fact they won last year and Curry is clearly not healthy, but it still is going to add an asterisk to that regular season.

I used to post as God on occasion, but I am too lazy nowadays.

You heard it here first!

You really need to czech your facts, Bruce. edit: did you all see what I did there?

It's confirmed, Hoonding is an alt of Volourn.

Been playing Expeditions: Conquistadors again, hopefully I'll see it through. Some of these battles are tough. I feel like the unluckiest person alive on certain rounds.

Bah, won't beat the original.

I am disappointed Cleveland didn't just smoke them and be done with it. Want to see these 'We The North' scumbags weep. Aw, gotta have a little bit of satisfaction in seeing a new team mixing it up against the Eastern king. It looked like the Cavs were going to coast in, now we've got potential upsets in both conferences.

Oh, like the Atlanteans? This is in line with how I teach about civilizations in the classroom. It references my state standards as well. http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/6.3/brown.html

I'd probably classify that as a more tribal society than a civilization.

We have loads of data that support religion and spirituality in early societies. Earlier I wrote that a civilization: So I suppose size does matter, although I think progress is the more important measure.

So if there is no evidence to support a lack of religion or spirituality in early societies, are we just supposed to take it on faith that they existed?

So what are the alternatives? I do like the idea that religion is more of a cultural glue than a foundation. That might be a more fitting analogy. But I have a hard time separating religion from the human condition before a certain time period. Actually I have a hard time saying "the human condition".

I'm fairly sure they're not. Mesh is full of **** more often than he isn't. Can you name a civilization that was built without a religious base? Absence of evidence can't be seen as evidence of absence, particular given that there are many parts of the world with no written records covering them for millennia. More than likely the godless blighters were long since smote by some righteous civilization who were offended that they weren't doing things right by the time recorded history came along. Speaking of records, I'd consider the ability to keep records a pretty basic building block of a civilization. Although it doesn't have to be written form, for example the quipu's of the Incas or the Griot's role in West Africa. The Soviet Union (and really any modern communist government) is partly defined by the absence of religion. But this is a modern idea, one that attempts to break away from the nature of early societies.

I don't think trying to nail down exactly what criteria are responsible for a bunch of people with a common cultural frame of reference to graduate to being "a civilization" (do tribes count? city-states? historical empires only? are we admitting cultures based on technological advancement? geographical area? organizational complexity in their system of governance? cultural achievements? some? all?) is pointless sophistry. I disagree.

Our best examples of isolated civilizations are going to be the ones in Central and South America. I do agree that it may be possible to find civilizations that developed religion to suit their needs, I'd assume most do that to an extent. It's tough for us to really go back to day 1 of a civilization. Rome wasn't built in a day.

No. Was the question relevant to the discussion at hand in any way, shape or form? It would explain why you seem more concerned with verbiage than the actual history. My next guess was you were president of the debate club. Extra credit points for GD. Carthage is a good one to examine. I'd throw in the Kingdom of the Vandals as well. Looking at civilizations that arose out of a rejection of another culture might be a great approach to the question.