TED Community » Kasper Mortensen

Comments

• TEDCred score: +1.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Talk: Zahra' Langhi: Why Libya's revolution didn't work -- and what might

  Feb 6 2013: Gadaffi had a very poor plan for social development, though, but I agree that the 'rebels' are no better.
  
  Libya needs a fourth alternative, none of the current aspirants can rule with dignity.

• A reply on Talk: Elizabeth Pisani: Sex, drugs and HIV -- let's get rational

  Jan 29 2013: Why is permission relevant if people are disregarding it? People are having sex, and they are dying because they don't use condoms. The situation is analogous with the prohibition against drugs; by your reasoning, people are in fact not getting HIV from sharing needles, because heroin is illegal.
  
  I'm sorry but the speaker is right; if you come up with an answer that changes nothing, then you have accomplished nothing. The pope could've let the texts speak for themselves in this matter. To air these opinions is indeed regarded as narcissistic nonsense by me and many others.

• A reply on Talk: Andrew McAfee: Are droids taking our jobs?

  Jan 29 2013: This talk is too loosely defined to make criticisms about the fact that he didn't mention the necessary social transformation in detail. Personally, I thought it was kind of implied, because I think this talk is extremely offensive to ANY current conventions that humans appeal to.
  
  However, if you live in a country that lacks in political evolution (such as the US), then I completely see why you are worried. Socialism, people. Socialism. Science, culture and riches MUST be divided amongst us all, because if we don't, we might as well change the american definition of the word 'loser' to 'doomed'.

• A reply on Talk: Diane J. Savino: The case for same-sex marriage

  Jan 28 2013: There is no need for laws that invade religious morals, because there are many different religions, and many different churches within most religions. If one church vows to exclude homosexuals, they will loose that part of their herd to another church. It's a 'market' for marriage.
  
  Oh, and the above argument is also my own way of saying that ALL churches, of ALL religions, should throw their anti-intelligent dogmatic nonsense in the trash where it belongs. If God is going to be a lasting concept of how the world works, 'he' will need to adapt in order to fit into the diminishing space that science has yet to discover. Dogma is inherently incompatible with the way humans 'know' things (science is corrosive to dogma, and vice versa).
• +1

  A reply on Talk: Ellen Jorgensen: Biohacking -- you can do it, too

  Jan 23 2013: Exactly, and there are several pieces of digital information that a person can easily keep secret to the public, such as credit card information, for instance. Keeping track of the sheet containing your genetic sequence shouldn't be too hard.

• A reply on Talk: Bjarke Ingels: Hedonistic sustainability

  Jan 22 2013: I'm danish, and I approve of this joke ^^
  
  Get to the chopper! *german accent*

• A comment on Talk: Jenna McCarthy: What you don't know about marriage

  Jan 22 2013: Believing that the current version of marriage is the only way to obtain those benefits seems incredibly narrow minded. In fact this talk is so shallow in its approach, that it's conclusion should be that the negative effects of not being married, could be eradicated by removing marriage as an institution.
  
  Advocating monogamy always seems so pointless to me. People are going to live the way they want. Lots of broken up couples are sooo much better off on their own, including my own mother and father.
  
  EDIT: And if we look at the statistics we have a 50% initial success rate in marriages. And out of those, only a very little portion give the benefits in health and finance that we are looking for. Jenny needs to google 'statistical insignificance'. There is nothing in this talk that is close to proving that these people wouldn't be exactly as happy and successful if they weren't married.
  
  De-institutionalize marriage tomorrow. Let people define their own customized legal contracts about love, if they feel that it serves any purpose at all.

• A reply on Talk: Elizabeth Pisani: Sex, drugs and HIV -- let's get rational

  Jan 22 2013: You can get tested for the HIV virus. Could you explain your thoughts on the tactic of using a condom with ones potential partner in fear of death, while he / she gets tested? Some of the reference groups don't have access to testing because they live in rural areas of the poorest countries on the planet. I just wanted to make sure that you don't neglect this in your answer.
  
  And also, why can't we collect some statistics from the stories of both The Bible and science, and realize that humans are having sex with the 'wrong' people, and they are getting HIV? It seems there is some kind of intellectual barrier at this point, because it just seems too harsh to me that religion would condemn all these souls, instead of keeping the door open.
• +2

  A reply on Talk: Cameron Russell: Looks aren't everything. Believe me, I'm a model.

  Jan 21 2013: I think that you (and the people talking about your comment) are being too narrow minded by saying that this talk doesn't contain anything new. Personally I find this talk USEFUL for a number of reasons, but I'll get to that. Genevieve Tran points to the fact that this talk was merely explanatory, and that it doesn't contain any new suggestions for solutions to the problem, and I agree. But is that a requirement in order to speak at TED? I think that her being a model gives a unique perspective of the mechanics of the problem. It's a perspective of the world we live in, that contains all of the weapons needed to properly assess the problems with her business (whether you are thinking about changing the industry by becoming a new breed of model, or by controlling it through a position of power).
  
  So, I think that this talk is useful because of the perspective she has. And I also think that it isn't entirely clear what she should change about her situation, since it seems impossible to have a society where we communicate images that have no people in them. In it's essence, I think it is natural to want to be a model - to be a carrier of a message. Just as natural as wanting to be a teacher, or a law enforcer. I don't know if the future will bring changes that require models to work part-time in some other industry to make ends meet, but nevertheless it isn't any different from being, say, an artist.
  
  Keep modelling if it makes you happy, Cameron. And keep making speeches; at some point it will take only one more voice to make a change.

• A reply on Talk: Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism

  Jan 9 2013: "Christian dogma" isn't true, this can be known through scientific approach.
  
  "SOME christian dogma" isn't necessarily false - THAT, is the absurdity that inspires FAITH in some people.