>> ^BoneRemake:

doublepromote
promote
quality


the gawd damn pusher MAN, man!

Shit oh howdy.

Where the bloody hell did I use the word "homophobe" in the video description?

And he didn't try to kiss him on the mouth, he went for his cheek, which is the culture in France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries. Will said he went for his mouth, but he didn't. At least, I didn't see it. He kissed him on the cheek.

What is interesting to me is that the first description I wrote did use the word "homophobe" but then I removed it. Because it was too strong. Will Smith does promote gay marriage. He clearly isn't a homophobe.

And -- man, did he react strongly to being kissed by a man. Instinctively. As an American man, not as a French man, or a Saudi. I don't believe a French man or a Saudi would have slapped a man who kissed him. I don't think that Will Smith would slap a woman who kissed him on the cheek. But he is an American man and there are strong boundary issues between American men.

You can be angry at me for pointing that out. It doesn't make it any less true.

What I find remarkable -- as I noted in the video description -- is how difficult it must be to be a celebrity and people want to touch you. Hug you. And yes, kiss you. That takes courage to allow all these strangers into your personal space like that. Will Smith is a courageous man who respects his fans and allows them into his personal space.

And he reacted instinctively as an American man when kissed by a man.

Man, it is sooooo tiring to be accused of things I don't do. Tiring.

>> ^longde:

Reading the trolling video description, I really wish I would have downvoted.
Not wanting to be kissed on the mouth by a perfect stranger makes one a homophobe? Not being gay = homophobia? Just like with your "saying 'girl' makes you a sexist" shtick, you are drawing the lines too tightly.

>> ^rottenseed:

The only reason why I have a beard is so that I'm not mistaken for a 15 year old...
...girl


HAHA~!!! I was going to type nearly the exact same thing but without the awesomely funny
...follow up.

Hat's off to you good sir. May the comment upvote I gave satisfy you as much as this life will allow.

I thought the "grrl" gamers were quite cute, such was their excitement and wonder. Ofc I am a manly man so I didn't shreak with glee when I saw the cake. No. No I did not.

Also, I know more girls that have played Portal 2 than have not. I think if I was a girl I'd be so fucking tired of being treated like the exception that I'd probably give up videogames in favour of, idk, whatever it is girls are "supposed" to be into.

Whereas nation states where religion is part of the law of the land. Well look at those nations. These are isolated states that have remained in a development vacuum but got rich off selling oil. There is no freedom of speech or democracy in those states. The very fact that the first world deals with say OPEC allows the theocracy to be sustained in those nations.

Religion was a form of government for most of Europe. Then we had the enlightenment, democracy, revolution, kings, wars, history and so on. Religious denominations in Europe are now rapidly fading. This process never occured in the Middle East. Suddenly they have BILLIONS to spend on spreading their 'faith' as a form of government intervention. Saudi Arabia building schools in Pakistan that eventually created the Taliban was not an act of religious domination but a ham fisted attempt at geopolitics via religious doctrine. Because for some fucking reason the Saudis believed the Taliban would actually listen to them or something LOL. (Is this of course ignoring specific political issues of the time, USSR, evil empire, Regean, cold war, US allies with Saudi Arabia, fighting proxy wars, stinger missiles, Charlie Wilson and so on).

Saudi Arabia is cool because its such a fucking relic of government policy they have little room for any type of social policy because that is dictat by Religion. Thus their policies stem from it. They are like evil but religiously ahaha so they just fund fundamentalists everywhere thinking it will give them political clout and power when in reality it backfires. Kinda like this US thing where it's like FREEDOM FOR ALL... THROUGH FUCKING DAISY CUTTERS. To Save Iraq We have to destroy it. To save Afghanistan. We have to keep sending troops for a dubious objective. Oh wait let's pull out now. etc.

Fundamentally we have to appreciate the fact that religion is but a theory of the that explained things prior to science. With the rise of science, it tried to fight it. Finally slowly it's either merging or being eliminated or reconstituted in new ideological belief sets.

What I mean to say is that it's only through the evolution of man, knowledge and ideas that humanity has reached a point where it starts to doubt a very flawed perception of reality. First gods were manifest everywhere. Then they were nature. Then they are ghosts. Now we are supposed to believe or have faith.

Those of a stronger mental make up could possibly accept that we live and die and that is the end. Others cling to religion because it is safe. Others believe in living eternally through genes, about the only thing we consistently carry on through time.

Time will see the end of man man religions, into new constructs of stupidity, because science still, while providing much of the answers lacks many fundamental resolutions for most issues at the core of religious belief. Time will tell us all. But so far so good.

>> ^hpqp:

How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.
Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.
I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.
edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.

@1:05^^^Happy next anniversary, ya manly man ya! Always good to recall the time and 'place when the life compass 'pointed t'wards the forever fhucked direction!!

Facts? Okay, 1 out of four go bad for cops as opposed. K. But there are 1000 or more citizens than cops. So, individual cops get the bad end of the stick most often than individuals by and large--thanks for the stat you just provided.And the death ratio is far high for cops too. (I am not saying abuse doesn't matter, but it doesn't matter as much as death...)

So when you say, "Clearly the individual should have more to fear" you are, clearly incorrect (By your own stat.)

Additionally, "Fear" and "blind power" can never go together. It has to be one or the other.


I agree some cops act either-or, which makes them thugs. They should be prosecuted. Did you also know who the more likely applicant for suicide is? Cops... Why? Who knows. Probably the same psychological reason that more commit crimes.



>> ^swedishfriend:

Reality!!!
Tazing is supposed to be used instead of deadly force (it is very dangerous to taze someone). At what point would any of this man's behavior constitute a reason to use deadly force?
Traffic stops end badly for the one being pulled over far more often than for the cop (4 to 1 as I recall). Clearly the cop should feel 4 times less worried than the man. The cop is the one being offensive both statistically and by being the more aggressive in this situation.
Cops are 2-10 times more likely to be a criminal than the general population depending on the type of crime you look at the statistics for (percentage of cops who are convicted of rape is double of that of the general male population. Statistics for murder was 4 times the general population). And that is despite the difficulty in prosecuting a cop for any crime.
Clearly, the general population has far more to fear from a police officer than a police officer has to fear from the general population in a situation like this so I don't find it reasonable for anyone to just blindly do what an officer asks them to do since the balance of danger is so greatly skewed against the private citizen. Nor do I find it reasonable for an officer to assume they are in all kinds of danger and act as if they are when they clearly are not in any danger and are being more aggressive than the suspected person.
Considering we live in the USA the police should be very careful around other people not the other way around. The public servant should not be in a position of power over the general population. Considering the protections of the constitution and the bill of rights not much could be considered a lawful order by a police officer. The officer would need good evidence of a crime just to even ask the suspect a question (reasonable cause).
The cops and their training is why the city had to pay out a settlement. The man acted quite reasonably if you believe in a free society and right to privacy. The cop acted out of fear and blind power.
The man gets out of car to talk to cop. Cop yells at man. man does not get into a more vulnerable position after being attacked like that (that would be suicidal in an evolutionary sense). Man continues to try to calmly resolve the situation while the cop continues to attack. At what point is it reasonable to turn your back on an attacker, to get into a more vulnerable position? It never is! At all points the man was more calm and less threatening than the cop was!

Reality!!!

Tazing is supposed to be used instead of deadly force (it is very dangerous to taze someone). At what point would any of this man's behavior constitute a reason to use deadly force?

Traffic stops end badly for the one being pulled over far more often than for the cop (4 to 1 as I recall). Clearly the cop should feel 4 times less worried than the man. The cop is the one being offensive both statistically and by being the more aggressive in this situation.

Cops are 2-10 times more likely to be a criminal than the general population depending on the type of crime you look at the statistics for (percentage of cops who are convicted of rape is double of that of the general male population. Statistics for murder was 4 times the general population). And that is despite the difficulty in prosecuting a cop for any crime.

Clearly, the general population has far more to fear from a police officer than a police officer has to fear from the general population in a situation like this so I don't find it reasonable for anyone to just blindly do what an officer asks them to do since the balance of danger is so greatly skewed against the private citizen. Nor do I find it reasonable for an officer to assume they are in all kinds of danger and act as if they are when they clearly are not in any danger and are being more aggressive than the suspected person.

Considering we live in the USA the police should be very careful around other people not the other way around. The public servant should not be in a position of power over the general population. Considering the protections of the constitution and the bill of rights not much could be considered a lawful order by a police officer. The officer would need good evidence of a crime just to even ask the suspect a question (reasonable cause).

The cops and their training is why the city had to pay out a settlement. The man acted quite reasonably if you believe in a free society and right to privacy. The cop acted out of fear and blind power.

The man gets out of car to talk to cop. Cop yells at man. man does not get into a more vulnerable position after being attacked like that (that would be suicidal in an evolutionary sense). Man continues to try to calmly resolve the situation while the cop continues to attack. At what point is it reasonable to turn your back on an attacker, to get into a more vulnerable position? It never is! At all points the man was more calm and less threatening than the cop was!

I love this man, man.

damnit beat me by an hour. *sniff* im not crying, got something in my eye, crying is for sissies, and im a man, man

@hpqp

Fine fine, you're the big bad intellectual and I am the intellectual cripple. Yet, if you're wrong, I would say the situation is more the reverse. But you're entitled to your wild conjecture, fevered ego and primitive stereotypes. I'll answer your questions:

1. Yes, I do believe that Adam and Eve are historical figures.

2. Special Revelation and no, you didn't understand. It states that all those He was given by the Father He will not lose. Therefore, anyone who is saved is always saved. If you reject the Holy Spirit you are not saved, therefore you were never a Christian in the first place.

3 If you're so much more intelligent than I am, why is it you're having trouble grasping this simple concept? Though Adam and Eve did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil, they were informed by God directly that it was bad to disobey him and there would be consequences. God imparted his knowledge of good and evil to them, on that circumstance, so they had the free choice.

God didn't seperate himself from man, man seperated himself from God. Instead of starting over, God went through all of this, even sent His Son to die for us, to reconcile us back to Him so we could again live together in paradise. All of this is for our benefit, and if some people prefer death to life, God isn't going to reprogram them to change their minds. He doesn't coerce love, He doesn't do evil. He gives man the choice to seek Him out or not. He shows them plainly that He is there. If they want to ignore Him and break all His rules and be seperated from Him forever, that's their choice. That's what hell actually is. Seperation from God. It's the worst punishment anyone could ever receive.

He's such a manly man..

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

^ Yeah, I've heard nothing good about Skyline. War of the Worlds (the newer) comes about as close to Empire's description that I've seen, the first 30 minutes anyway. After that, Spielberg switches to autopilot.

Anyone here ever watched Testament? Lynne Littman, 1983? It's not an alien invasion movie but it is the correct way to make an apocalypse movie: no guns, no explosions, no special effects whatsoever save for a fade to white when the bombs hit. I weep like a little girl with a skinned knee every time I watch that movie. And I'm a manly man. No really. I have a beard and everything.

Seriously, Testament shows what a character-driven apocalypse movie can be. And it has a very dark yet satisfying ending.

**It's Shuac Recommended** /announcer voice

Thank you

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*quality! Manly man lion.