No, no, no. It's totally different. In Mencia's joke, his son is the Superbowl MVP. In Cosby's his son just plays college ball. Totally different joke. Also, Mencia's version sucks.

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

>> ^Trancecoach:

try that shit in a sports bar....


AdBusters, which was one of the sources of inspiration for the whole Occupy movement promoted this "universal off" remote - one click, cycle through dozens of models... lulz.

Ah, here it is!

http://www.tvbgone.com/cfe_tvbg_main.php

@ctrlaltbleach not that it matters if you know this, but I didn't watch the superbowl. I couldn't give a shit about it personally.

Wiki-

A practical joke (also known as a prank, gag, or jape) is a mischievous trick played on someone, typically causing the victim to experience embarrassment, indignity, or discomfort. Practical jokes differ from confidence tricks in that the victim finds out, or is let in on the joke, rather than being fooled into handing over money or other valuables. Practical jokes or pranks are typically lighthearted, reversible or non-permanent, and aim to make the victim feel foolish or victimized to a certain degree. However, practical jokes may also involve cruelty.
The term "practical" refers to the fact that the joke consists of someone doing something physical, instead of a verbal or written joke. For example, the joker who is setting up and performing the practical joke, might hang a bucket of water above a doorway and rig the bucket using pulleys such that, when the door opens, the bucket dumps the water. The joker would then wait for the victim to walk through the doorway and be drenched by the bucket of water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_joke

>> ^budzos:

This is pretty assholish. I can't really see what's supposed to be funny about it. Wow, so hilarious to ruin someone's enjoyment of something they're deeply absorbed in.


>> ^Quboid:

This just seems like a dick move to me. When someone's really into something and you suddenly ruin it, duh, they get upset. That would be like me telling you that Bruce Willis was a ghost all along or that Tyler is in Jack's imagination - these things work on suspense, and that only works when they are revealed properly. Try watching a football match (real or American) when you know what's going to happen ... it's not the same, not at all.
I appreciate that people not into sports don't get this, but they should get that people into sports are, gasp, into sports. They don't deserve to be called morons or sheeple, for what, for enjoying something? Screw you. Who the hell are you to judge them?
Sorry if I just ruined those... Sucks, doesn't it?

I don't really care for the Superbowl. In fact, I don't watch sports at all. But the people in these videos clearly DO enjoy watching, so it's not surprising that turning the TV off at a crucial point in the game would piss them off, just as any of us getting cut off from something we enjoy would piss us off. Is there any harm in pulling this prank? Not at all, though it's not particularly nice. Are those people justified in their anger? Of course. It's like poking a bear in a cage, then laughing at it when it reacts in with impotent fury.

I must concede that there certainly is controversy on the definition of what "atheism" means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions

On, among other details, the negative/positive we're arguing for here. I suppose "Atheism" is too broad a word nowadays to be able to narrow down - this is a problem, because it causes confusion in both adversaries and proponents.
>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry but the dictionary disagrees with you:
a·the·ist   /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

>> ^gwiz665:
False.
Atheism is a negative position, not a positive one. It makes no claims as to what is, it only says what is not. It is "no belief in X" not, "belief in no X".
>> ^shinyblurry:
atheism denies the existence of a deity. to say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement of your psychology and has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. If you want to say you don't know, you are an agnostic.
>> ^HaricotVert:
Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.
The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.
Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

I'm sorry but the dictionary disagrees with you:

a·the·ist   /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


>> ^gwiz665:
False.
Atheism is a negative position, not a positive one. It makes no claims as to what is, it only says what is not. It is "no belief in X" not, "belief in no X".
>> ^shinyblurry:
atheism denies the existence of a deity. to say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement of your psychology and has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. If you want to say you don't know, you are an agnostic.
>> ^HaricotVert:
Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.
The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.
Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

>> ^brycewi19:

I'm just sayin', if I had that much dream dust on me I would use a bit more imagination on Adriana Lima's outfit.


This was my problem with Inception. You two are stuck in a dream world so you make a bunch of skyscrapers that look like they should be on earth? Fuck that shit...you'd go absolutely NUTTY with it.

>> ^gwiz665:

False.
Atheism is a negative position, not a positive one. It makes no claims as to what is, it only says what is not. It is "no belief in X" not, "belief in no X".
>> ^shinyblurry:
atheism denies the existence of a deity. to say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement of your psychology and has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. If you want to say you don't know, you are an agnostic.

>> ^HaricotVert:
Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.
The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.
Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project





What a minute.

Atheism IS the belief that there is no God/Deity. Isn't it?

It's agnostics that simply take no position and say they don't believe one way or the other...

False.
Atheism is a negative position, not a positive one. It makes no claims as to what is, it only says what is not. It is "no belief in X" not, "belief in no X".
>> ^shinyblurry:

atheism denies the existence of a deity. to say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement of your psychology and has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. If you want to say you don't know, you are an agnostic.

>> ^HaricotVert:
Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.
The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.
Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

atheism denies the existence of a deity. to say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement of your psychology and has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. If you want to say you don't know, you are an agnostic.


>> ^HaricotVert:
Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.
The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.
Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

Quote-mining a mischaracterization of atheism. How trite. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not "I believe that no god exists." There is a subtle but important difference.

The concept or existence of a god is precisely not excluded from the realm of possibility. The arrogance of assuming that for some reason every atheist is a "gnostic atheist" who just "doesn't understand" or is "closeminded" to the idea of god is ridiculous. Provide us with scientific evidence, or the messiah appearing at the superbowl (per Maher's rant) and I would be more than happy to reevaluate my current logical position in light of new evidence. To do otherwise would be a violation of the very science and reason I already live by.

Here is a handy chart to clarify the distinction between gnosticism and theism.

>> ^shinyblurry:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

What is this narcissistic nightmare? Why is she famous? She is a mediocre singer, a mediocre dancer, produces mediocre songs and has shown little to no artistic growth for her 30+ year career. And what's with using younger, more interesting acts as fashion accessories? Wouldn't it be more interesting to let MIA, Cee Lo or LMFAO cut loose rather than have to watch Madonna lip sync her way through a late midlife crisis? And, unless you are Snoop Dogg, putting your own name in your own song is just sad.


I thought it was great, especially for a Superbowl Half-time show.

>> ^dag:

It's Superbowl Monday for me. sigh.


But are you into it? What time was it lived over there?