A Tent Tornado is better than a Titty Twister!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'book, children, numb, tongue twister' to 'book, children, numb, tongue twister, seuss' - edited by jonny

Auntie Em! Auntie Em! It's a twister!

The cave only contains what you bring with you.

Sadly that video was dead so I couldn't see it. I would like to ask how you actually go about verifying spirituality.

Spirituality may be a real experience, but that does not mean that it is actually real. Paranoia is a real experience too.

Faith is a virus in many ways (obviously not biologically), but it acts as one. That said. you can say that for any meme.

Twisting religion and/or faith for "evil" is easy - anything can be twisted. The fundamental problem is that at the very core, religion is, well, bad. It's detrimental for the human race. We would be in a better place without it. By no means perfect, other factors are at work, tribalism, fanaticism, greed, etc. but nonetheless, it would be a better place, because you could not justify your evil actions through a supreme being. Do you realize how dangerous it is when someone is absolutely convinced they are right? Skepticism is a healthy attribute in a benign society. Spirituality (moreso religion and faith) is detriment to that.

When people argue "oh, look at all the culture and art that religion inspired", I think that's a bunk argument. The art and culture is there in spite of the religion smothering it. The reason all the classic art is about religion, is because churches leeched the money of everyone and therefor were the only ones who could pay for great works of art. If Catholicism had not had a stranglehold on Europe for some 1000 years, the art of the whole period would have been far more varied and fantastic.

I'm ashamed of my fellow man not growing up to face what's really out there, because it's crazy enough as it is without lunacy on top of it.
>> ^jonny:

>> ^gwiz665:
Spirituality is a hoax.
Faith is a virus.
Spirituality is a real, verifiable human experience. There are many paths to having such an experience, some of them involving religion, ritual and/or psychoactive drugs. However much we might disdain the belief in some bearded man in the sky as the source of such experiences, it would be absurd to deny their existence, power, or importance. Religion provides the most accessible path for many people.
I'm not sure what you mean by that second sentence. Do you mean faith in general, i.e., belief in something of which you have no direct knowledge or evidence? Or do you mean faith in the existence of Jehovah, the divinity of Jesus, or some other specific religious doctrine? I'd rather avoid getting into an epistemological argument, but the fact is that everyone relies on faith to a greater or lesser extent. More importantly, though, is just how useful faith can be. No one would argue that it can't be twisted to serve "evil" ends, sometimes without the twister or twisted even being aware of it. But to disregard the usefulness of faith entirely based on its misuse and abuse is ridiculous. It's like telling people not to have sex because of the potential negative consequences.
When I look at religion, I don't understand why it is blamed for so many of the atrocities humans have committed upon each other. The deeper cause is (fundamentalist) tribalism, and it comes in many forms - religious, ethnic, geographic, ideological, etc. All of these have been used as "psychic levers" to inspire people to act in ways they never would otherwise. Even in a hypothetical parallel world in which religion and belief in gods doesn't exist, all of the horrors of which humans are capable would still be found. I'd like to think the artistic output inspired by religion and faith would have other sources as well, but I'm not completely certain of it.

>> ^gwiz665:

Spirituality is a hoax.
Faith is a virus.

Spirituality is a real, verifiable human experience. There are many paths to having such an experience, some of them involving religion, ritual and/or psychoactive drugs. However much we might disdain the belief in some bearded man in the sky as the source of such experiences, it would be absurd to deny their existence, power, or importance. Religion provides the most accessible path for many people.

I'm not sure what you mean by that second sentence. Do you mean faith in general, i.e., belief in something of which you have no direct knowledge or evidence? Or do you mean faith in the existence of Jehovah, the divinity of Jesus, or some other specific religious doctrine? I'd rather avoid getting into an epistemological argument, but the fact is that everyone relies on faith to a greater or lesser extent. More importantly, though, is just how useful faith can be. No one would argue that it can't be twisted to serve "evil" ends, sometimes without the twister or twisted even being aware of it. But to disregard the usefulness of faith entirely based on its misuse and abuse is ridiculous. It's like telling people not to have sex because of the potential negative consequences.

When I look at religion, I don't understand why it is blamed for so many of the atrocities humans have committed upon each other. The deeper cause is (fundamentalist) tribalism, and it comes in many forms - religious, ethnic, geographic, ideological, etc. All of these have been used as "psychic levers" to inspire people to act in ways they never would otherwise. Even in a hypothetical parallel world in which religion and belief in gods doesn't exist, all of the horrors of which humans are capable would still be found. I'd like to think the artistic output inspired by religion and faith would have other sources as well, but I'm not completely certain of it.

Digital twister

@bareboards2:
Røget ørred med røræg og rød grød med fløde.
Translated its:
Smoked Trout with scrambled eggs and "red porridge" with cream.

A better tongue twister in danish is
"Plukke frugt med en brugt frugt plukker"
I think.
"Picking fruit with a used fruit picker" basically.

>> ^garmachi:

Hopefully there's someone of Japanese/Chinese/some other Asian descent who can answer this for me.
Why is it that I can pronounce "walk", "wok" AND "werrrrrrk", yet this guy can't? I also hope no one thinks I'm racist, I'm just ignorant.


The other replies to this were great, but I thought I'd chime in with a "shoe on the other foot" anecdote.

I am an American but I moved to Thailand almost 5 years ago to teach ESL English. I've been working on learning to speak and understand Thai. My comprehension is reasonable now, but my speaking is more mediocre and native Thai listeners sometimes have to guess what I am shooting for based on context, etc.

The tough part is tones. Depending on the pitch, in Thai the word "kow" can mean rice, white, mountain, or knee. A tongue-twister my students use is "krai kai kai gai" which means "who sells chicken eggs", if you get the tones right.

I think that if I live here another 20 years I could probably get to be fluent in Thai comprehension, but I'll never be good in pronunciation of the tones like a native Thai speaker. I can definitely get by and have a functional command of the language, but to a native Thai ear I will always have poor pronunciation somewhat analogous to this guy's inability to say walk/wok/weerrrrrk.

Kinda like an S&M version of twister... for your fingers.

It sounds like they have to yell some kind of tongue twister or something.

Hey! You guiz seen Twister?!?

Basugasubakuhatsu? It's a Japanese tongue twister that means "bus gas explosion". Seems appropriate in this context.

They're not going to like the Twister game wedding gift.

He'd save a syllable calling it a "twister".