Given that this guy is an amateur builder I assume this place will be torn down when he passes. What a weird desire to build a cathedral... I would be / am one of the people that would call this guy crazy.

Well-known Tofflerisms:
- Change is the only constant.
-Technology feeds on itself. technology makes more technology possible.
-the Law of Raspberry Jam: the wider any culture is spread, the thinner it gets.
-It is better to err on the side of daring than the side of caution.
-Parenthood remains the greatest single preserve of the amateur.

Amateur night, everyone knows if Mormons show up you put out the gargoyle. Mormons disappear and gargoyles remain well fed.

I have also linked this in the description, so people don't have to read the comments to find this link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/6/1534962/-The-daunting-and-powerful-statement-a-Stanford-victim-reads-to-her-rapist-in-court-goes-viral

Here is part of the full statement that was excised for time -- part of where she responds to the defendant's statement, point by point:

You said, Being drunk I just couldn’t make the best decisions and neither could she.

Alcohol is not an excuse. Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost fully naked. Having too much to drink was an amateur mistake that I admit to, but it is not criminal. Everyone in this room has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much, or knows someone close to them who has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much. Regretting drinking is not the same as regretting sexual assault. We were both drunk, the difference is I did not take off your pants and underwear, touch you inappropriately, and run away. That’s the difference.

You said, If I wanted to get to know her, I should have asked for her number, rather than asking her to go back to my room.

I’m not mad because you didn’t ask for my number. Even if you did know me, I would not want be in this situation. My own boyfriend knows me, but if he asked to finger me behind a dumpster, I would slap him. No girl wants to be in this situation. Nobody. I don’t care if you know their phone number or not.

You said, I stupidly thought it was okay for me to do what everyone around me was doing, which was drinking. I was wrong.

Again, you were not wrong for drinking. Everyone around you was not sexually assaulting me. You were wrong for doing what nobody else was doing, which was pushing your erect dick in your pants against my naked, defenseless body concealed in a dark area, where partygoers could no longer see or protect me, and own my sister could not find me. Sipping fireball is not your crime. Peeling off and discarding my underwear like a candy wrapper to insert your finger into my body, is where you went wrong. Why am I still explaining this.

Seconded. You can subscribe to feminism and individualism, or feminism and collectivism, or any other combination of these different schools of thought - one is not 'better' than the others in the sense that a hammer isn't 'better' than a saw or a drill.

The way that the internet is turning actual schools of thought and study into 'teams' to be on is the same mechanism that drives a lot of amateur identity politics. "I don't want to be on team feminist because that team is rude on twitter, so I'll be on team humanist" is a sentiment that works great in vlogs, but which kicks all the actual thought and theory behind humanism and feminism, respectively, to the curb in favor of team politics. This is not to say that we shouldn't have 'teams,' just that we can make up those teams without discarding years of high quality thinking and actual crisp definitions.

This guy is everything I hate about amateur internet videos, especially these endless "everything you know is wrong" videos. I couldn't even stand to watch it, had to scroll down and listen to about half of it before I stopped it.

Along with this giddy condescending tone that's more suited for 8th graders he comes out with empty-headed shit like "this led international scholars to declare that the Soviet Union was the real iconic saviors of Europe during the war". I think even an 8th grader could spot the bad grammar and requisite misuse of the word "iconic".

You got your myths from TV and movies and now look to the internet to clear them up? Read a shelf of books instead.

Amateurs.


Forgot their sledge hammer.

IKR, amateurs.

I'd actually downvote this too, but Ive never downvoted anything before so I need to read up on it first. That said...
Half the video is the text scrawl of someones personal opinion, and as @Januari already pointed out the thing is a complete mess otherwise. No context, obvious bias, hugely amateur presentation, etc.

I am 100% behind the gesture though.

Bullshits. Whys didn't these deaths stops ats 666?

Amateurs.

What an amateur... talking about the dildos and bags of dicks only emboldens them. =D

Amateurs, my guys would have had Yoda dismantled and hidden in every corner of the house by the end of this video. I suspect, in their former lives they worked as cleaners for the Mob.

Sorry to jump the thread here; not sure if dubious is the word either, but pretty amateur and more fear mongering with no supporting data.

First, the suggestion that no more reactors should be built because people use them to aid in production of nuclear weapons. Well kids, that ship has already sailed: In June 2014, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that nine nations (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea) possessed approx. 16,300 nuclear weapons in total. So someone builds one or 10 more? Yeah, that will matter. Someone needs to read up on the concept of deterrence.

When talking about waste: "Germany has literally tons of the stuff just laying around" - well, that's just horseshit.

Regarding accidents and number of deaths due to nuclear reactors: "devastating disasters every 30 years" - devastating? Come on, people died, but compared to other sources of energy, according to the WHO, it is by far the safest. Consider:

Energy Source Mortality Rates; Deaths/yr/TWh

Coal - world average, 161
Coal - China, 278
Coal - USA, 15
Oil - 36
Natural Gas - 4
Biofuel/Biomass - 12
Peat - 12
Solar/rooftop - 0.44-0.83
Wind - 0.15
Hydro - world, 0.10
Hydro - world*, 1.4
Nuclear - 0.04

* Includes the 170,000 deaths from the failure of the Banquao Reservoir Dam in China in 1975

So, if not dubious, certainly cheap and pedantic.

The full coverage explains that. This is a handicap series, where professional drivers and faster cars compete against amateurs and slower cars.

As a professional driver in clearly the fastest car in the field, Jono Lester was awarded a whopping 57 second pit stop.

He might even have still managed to win, except that there was a safety car just as the pit window opened and although some cars pitted straight away he didn't.

It was still fairly close

One other thing to point out is that the series format did help with the overtaking, since some of the drivers weren't used to such long races on a street circuit and would have been getting tired at the end (and therefore didn't put up much of a fight).

It always amazes me whenever someone says they want a gun "for protection".

The U.S. is not the wild west anymore; I've been there several times and no one shot me, shot at me or even pointed a gun at me.

In NZ, if you want to buy a gun, you have to apply for a firearms license. If you don't have mental illness or a criminal record, you then state your reason for applying:
Hunting? Sweet, get some venison!
Target shooting? Awesome, have fun on the range!
Protection? Licence denied. We're all good without amateur idiots running around being paranoid.

Because of this, if you have a gun it is legally required to be secured in a gun safe. As Jim Jeffries puts it, a gun in a gun safe isn't much good if you want it for "protection"
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Jim-Jefferies-on-gun-control