>> ^lucky760:
I worry often and a lot about how I can possibly keep my sons from being perverted by this society.


Ditto. I think back to me growing up and the sort of soft introduction to adult material. First you'd see topless women in National Geographics, then maybe some 'lad's mags' in the store, nothing naked, just bikini stuff... then you might get hold of a Playboy and see naked women. And back then they were pretty much natural women too (sure, not 'average', but at least not silicon and botox plumped versions).

Then you might get to see some actual porn mags at your 'rough' friend's place...

These days: "Go on web, look up sex in google image search and get inundated with hard, filthy sex"

Yeah, quite concerned. Doing our best to shield our kids from it as much as possible. Plenty of talk about what sex is (we have 3 boys and a girl all under 9), and that side of things (my wife is a midwife, so it kind of comes up a lot), but shielding as much as possible from not just sex on the internet, but also what passes for mainstream music videos these days (I mean, fucking Katy Perry... FUCK).

I'm with you lucky. I have no problem with sex... no problem with masturbation, no problem with porn in and of itself (just what 90% of it has become)... but how engrained it's become and how central and how much it's pushing into the lives of younger and younger kids.

Yeah, it's not good

>> ^Payback:

>> ^ghark:
>> ^artician:
I can attest to the fact that the second portrait is not shopped. It's a somewhat-famous photo from a national geographic photographer, taken in the mid-80's. I have the original print of it, and though it's possible some enhancements were done during development, I would think the effects would be quite slim compared to straight up photoshopping it.
So... there's at least one in here you can appreciate.

Agreed, they even went back and found the (National Geographic) lady many years later and confirmed it was her through retinal matching of the eyes - not via color of course, but in the documentary her eyes still looked the same as the photo.

...the pathetic part being how her "husband" had treated her over the intervening years.


Ahh yea, had forgotten that, was very sad.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^artician:
I can attest to the fact that the second portrait is not shopped. It's a somewhat-famous photo from a national geographic photographer, taken in the mid-80's. I have the original print of it, and though it's possible some enhancements were done during development, I would think the effects would be quite slim compared to straight up photoshopping it.
So... there's at least one in here you can appreciate.

Agreed, they even went back and found the (National Geographic) lady many years later and confirmed it was her through retinal matching of the eyes - not via color of course, but in the documentary her eyes still looked the same as the photo.


...the pathetic part being how her "husband" had treated her over the intervening years.

>> ^artician:

I can attest to the fact that the second portrait is not shopped. It's a somewhat-famous photo from a national geographic photographer, taken in the mid-80's. I have the original print of it, and though it's possible some enhancements were done during development, I would think the effects would be quite slim compared to straight up photoshopping it.
So... there's at least one in here you can appreciate.


Agreed, they even went back and found the (National Geographic) lady many years later and confirmed it was her through retinal matching of the eyes - not via color of course, but in the documentary her eyes still looked the same as the photo.

I can attest to the fact that the second portrait is not shopped. It's a somewhat-famous photo from a national geographic photographer, taken in the mid-80's. I have the original print of it, and though it's possible some enhancements were done during development, I would think the effects would be quite slim compared to straight up photoshopping it.

So... there's at least one in here you can appreciate.

>> ^Bruti79:

I did know this existed, National Geographic did a show on it. =D


Not only did i used to play this (didn't call it that though) but i knew it existed cos some dude asked if that was what we were playing.

I did know this existed, National Geographic did a show on it. =D

>> ^TheFreak:

>> ^EMPIRE:
she's adorably cute (Kristen, not the sloth, although sloths are pretty cool I guess)

No, they're not cool! They are terrifying.
Oh sure, they're adorable hanging out in trees in your National Geographic.
But just wait until the day you wake up on the floor of a Panamanian jungle and look over, half asleep, to see one of those monsters crawling, inexorably, eerily slowly...towards your face. Each outstretched limb like the leg of an improbable hell beast spawn of spider and morlock, covered in green moss like the dried ichor of Yog-Sothoth that birthed the abomination. It's void black eyes piercing into your own as your brain tries to form a maddening scream that will never find your lips, as you lay paralyzed in terror.
Wait for that day. It will happen...oh yes, that day is coming for you too.
I mean, sloths...not Kristen Bell. She's adorable.


To me, Sloths are Badgers on Quaaludes.

>> ^TheFreak:


No, they're not cool! They are terrifying.
Oh sure, they're adorable hanging out in trees in your National Geographic.
But just wait until the day you wake up on the floor of a Panamanian jungle and look over, half asleep, to see one of those monsters crawling, inexorably, eerily slowly...towards your face. Each outstretched limb like the leg of an improbable hell beast spawn of spider and morlock, covered in green moss like the dried ichor of Yog-Sothoth that birthed the abomination. It's void black eyes piercing into your own as your brain tries to form a maddening scream that will never find your lips, as you lay paralyzed in terror.
Wait for that day. It will happen...oh yes, that day is coming for you too.
I mean, sloths...not Kristen Bell. She's adorable.

Note to self, do not read Lovecraft before bed when hiking in the Panamanian jungle.

>> ^EMPIRE:

she's adorably cute (Kristen, not the sloth, although sloths are pretty cool I guess)


No, they're not cool! They are terrifying.

Oh sure, they're adorable hanging out in trees in your National Geographic.
But just wait until the day you wake up on the floor of a Panamanian jungle and look over, half asleep, to see one of those monsters crawling, inexorably, eerily slowly...towards your face. Each outstretched limb like the leg of an improbable hell beast spawn of spider and morlock, covered in green moss like the dried ichor of Yog-Sothoth that birthed the abomination. It's void black eyes piercing into your own as your brain tries to form a maddening scream that will never find your lips, as you lay paralyzed in terror.

Wait for that day. It will happen...oh yes, that day is coming for you too.

I mean, sloths...not Kristen Bell. She's adorable.

Thank you. I've been monitoring matters particularly since Thanksgiving week.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
if you have 30minutes, you can watch this
I like http://maxkeiser.com/2011/12/01/max-keiser-uberdebten/

but make sure you read this first
A Beginner’s Guide to the European Debt Crisis http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/11/beginners-guide-to
-european-debt-crisis.html via @expat229


In reply to this comment by dotdude:
Thank you for the link. I enjoyed seeing the photos. :

In reply to this comment by marinara:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/11/national-g
eographic-photo-contest-2011/100187/

if you have 30minutes, you can watch this
I like http://maxkeiser.com/2011/12/01/max-keiser-uberdebten/

but make sure you read this first
A Beginner’s Guide to the European Debt Crisis http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/11/beginners-guide-to-european-debt-crisis.html via @expat229


In reply to this comment by dotdude:
Thank you for the link. I enjoyed seeing the photos. :

In reply to this comment by marinara:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/11/national-g
eographic-photo-contest-2011/100187/

Thank you for the link. I enjoyed seeing the photos.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/11/national-g
eographic-photo-contest-2011/100187/

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/11/national-geographic-photo-contest-2011/100187/

Nice selective quoting.

"The classical (Roman) writers affirm that they offered on great occasions human sacrifices; as for success in war or for relief from dangerous diseases. Cæsar has given a detailed account of the manner in which this was done. "They have images of immense size, the limbs of which are framed with twisted twigs and filled with living persons. These being set on fire, those within are encompassed by the flames." Many attempts have been made by Celtic writers to shake the testimony of the Roman historians to this fact, but without success."

We have no reason to doubt the testimony of their contemporaries. And if you want more evidence, how about national geographic:

Druids Committed Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090320-druids-sacrifice-cannibalism.html

It's actually far worse than I thought. Far from a quaint little holiday where people mourned the dead, it was sick pagan bloodbath.

What's clear is that you're more interested in a convenient truth;; you said it yourself, you skim over the evidence in apathy, and just want to believe what you want. Doesn't change the facts though; Halloween celebrates an evil day where a bunch of savages worshipped demons, sacrificed human beings and apparently ate their flesh. I'm sorry, but there is nothing there for Christians to celebrate. Pat Robertson is 100 percent correct.

>> ^pho3n1x:
Show me where, in your first link, it mentions human sacrifice...
Instead, don't. I'll quote it for you:
That the Druids offered sacrifices to their deity there can be no doubt. But there is some uncertainty as to what they offered, and of the ceremonies connected with their religious services we know almost nothing.
Also, quoting the other article you mentioned regarding bonfires:
It comes from the contraction of bone fire, where the Celts used to burn animal bones to ward off evil spirits.
Try harder.
--
Catholic Mass, to my knowledge, is not based on pagan sacrifice at all, but rather using bread and wine as a "bloodless" sacrifice honoring the crucifixion of Christ. Granted, I only skimmed the articles because I'm not really that interested in the whole ordeal, but it seems to me like you don't like to read anything other than the pamphlets your church of choice provides about each secular holiday anyway, so I'm probably just wasting my time.
You can believe what you want to believe, let me believe what I want to believe.
--
Religion is like a penis.
It's awesome that you have one.
It's awesome that you're proud of it.
But please stop whipping it out and waving it around in public.
It's not any better or more important than mine.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Druids worshipped baal, engaged in human sacrifice:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_bulfinch_chxlia.htm\

This was not a wholesome little get together, and it did involve blood sacrifice. The root of bonfire is "bonefire" http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_word_bonfire
No, not all spirits are demons; God is a spirit, and angels are spirits. Yet, many people have this idea of a dichotomy between "good" spirits and evil spirits, but in reality they're almost all evil spirits. Any spirit not sent by God is a demon. Spirits impersonating the dead are demons, spirits which claim to be other gods are demons, the spirits people channel are demons, etc. The astral realm is owned by Satan and populated by demons pretending to be every kind of fantasy someone could imagine, and many people wouldn't. There is no Goddess, there are no ghosts, there aren't any of these psychic manifestations. It all stems from Satan. Satan is a being, not a concept, as real as you and me, and he is the deceiver of this entire world.
I agree, Catholic mass is sacrifice, because it is pagan ritual the church took on as its own. It has nothing to do with God, but it does represent the union of the sun and moon, as per babylonian mystery religions.
By and large, people who practice sorcery, divination, channeling, "psychic" abilities, and the like are all doing Satans will. They all come out in droves to celebrate this evil day, to worship other gods and practice their witchcraft; basically to do all the things which God commanded us not to do. The only involvement Christians should have on this is to pray for those who are deceived.
>> ^pho3n1x:
I think you're misconstruing the use of the word "sacrifice" to summon imagery of blood sacrifice (ie Indiana Jones).
Not all sacrifice is macabre or evil. Catholic Mass is a sacrifice.
I've not read a single source regarding Samhain/Halloween/All Saints Eve, even one from "your side" of the argument, that alludes to human sacrifice.
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Projects/Reln91/Blood/s
acrificemainpage.htm
Besides, "pagan" is a blanket term. The ones you are trying to illustrate are Druids. They would make animal sacrifices, which were then immediately consumed as part of the festival.
Satan does not exist in the religion which you are misunderstanding. Satan is a Christian idea.
And I still assert that spirits are not all demons. Is the Holy Spirit a demon?
Before you try to correct me, I also have a lot of personal experience in these matters, and I know that there are some misguided individuals. By and large though, "pagan" religions (as paganism is not in-and-of-itself a religion) do not share these views and simply see the matter for what it is. Animals and crops are harvested for the coming winter, and tribute is paid to "the death of a god", not to "a god of death".