As opposed to this conceited d0uchebag, who is obviously a med!ocre troll.

I think Rich's shtick is that he speaks and behaves slightly awkwardly, offbeat. So i think part of the joke is him inexpertly/unexpectedly using a cattle herding term, the conceit of which is that Rob can decide to buy him some more biscuits or not as he chooses, because it's his money and Rich isn't about to force him. Obviously analysing it doesn't do it much justice.

That's what i think, but i don't actually find Rich funny so i might be missing the joke myself.

After seeing the colony freeze, go hungry, suffer plague, have it's foreign support removed, get swindled by outsiders, and eventually descend into near-anarchy, Bradford made the following entries:


All this whille no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much torne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corve every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves; in all other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys and youth under some familie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more torne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into the feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set torne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.

The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other.ancients, applauded by some of aater times; -that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and $orishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and servise did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails and cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter the other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, etc., with the meaner and yonger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it. Upon the poynte all being to have alike, and all to doe alike, they thought them selves in the like condition, and ove as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of the mutuall respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have bene worse if they had been men of another condition. Let pone objecte this is mens corruption, and nothing to the course it selfe. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them.


Not for nothing, but Rick serves as yet another "poster boy" for how there will never be income "equality." Mr. Rubin would not be "equal" in salary to most people, whether there's a free market, a crony capitalist market, a socialist non-market, or a communist non-market.

Eminem, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, the Beastie Boys, Sir Mix-a-Lot, Lana Del Rey, Krishna Das, Johnny Cash, Adele, Rage Against the Machine, Run DMC, Danzig, Slayer, the (extremely versatile) list of course goes on and on (and on). That's why Mr. Rubin is in the 1%.. Because you (and tens or hundreds of millions of others) listen and like the albums that he produces and not the ones produced by most of the other wanna-be (or actual) "music producers."

But, of course, the envy-fiends have their "reasons" as to why they think they should be paid that kind of money and/or deserve (like mobsters do) to have a a piece of his pie.

Or that if you could only get others to vote in a certain way, you'd be Rick Rubin, or in his shoes. Such a conceit reinforces the obvious: you can only control your self. Little-to-no benefit comes from worrying about or trying to influence what other people do or don't do (especially when it has nothing to do with you and you can't do anything about it anyway). The conceit that anything else is the case leads to profound suffering on both the personal as well as on the social and political levels.

That's a good one. I called out the central conceit of your post which is that if @bareboards2 is glad that Romney isn't president, she must automatically be in favour of the litany of Obamas failures you outlined.

It's hardly "mistyped punctuation". Drop the fucking persecution complex.

I'm sorry, I used to think that way too, but it's just not so.

You're confusing atheism with anti-theism. You're stuck in a "if you're not with me, you must be against me" binary mentality. The lack of (or being without by your definition) something is not equivalent to being opposed to something. Bald is not a hair color

As for your argument about "New Atheists," you're just creating a strawman. Never claimed anything about agnostics, especially nothing as derogatory as you seem to be implying.

It can be argued that everyone is agnostic since no one knows with certainty of the existence of a creator. People claim to have faith, but by definition, that's believing without proof so that doesn't hold up as "knowing" People also claim to "know" but their evidence never holds up beyond human conceit.

That's why I mentioned Grimm in my last post, we were talking about this subject on another sift, the mis-communication of what Atheism is. There's that tired theist claim that Atheists hate god. well you can't hate something if you don't have evidence that it exists.

An atheist is not in opposition to a creator, it's just that there is no proof and every claim out there so far can pretty much be summed up as human conceit. An atheist would probably be excited to find proof as it would expand on our understanding and thus, improve science even more.

You're way off, and you clearly haven't read or understood any of the authors named in my comment. Had you developed an informed opinion before spouting off on the basis of the Kool-Aid you've drank, you'd understand that, without government, there'd be no "big guys" to exploit the subsidies and cronyism that are implicit in the original monopoly that is "government."
If you think that some how government (i.e., kleptocrats) are "overseeing things," then you've got some learning to do. The corruption and co-optation of the market is not a "problem" to be "fixed" by the government. It is a direct effect of government. To think otherwise is a fatal conceit, one whose costs get higher by the day.

But, you can believe whatever you want to believe.


"The politicians are real, the soldiers and police who enforce the politicians’ will are real, the buildings they inhabit are real, the weapons they wield are very real, but their supposed “authority” is not. And without that “authority,” without the right to do what they do, they are nothing but a gang of thugs. The term “government” implies legitimacy– it means the exercise of “authority” over a certain people or place. The way people speak of those in power, calling their commands “laws,” referring to disobedience to them as a “crime,” and so on, implies the right of” government” to rule, and a corresponding obligation on the part of its subjects to obey. Without the right to rule (”authority”), there is no reason to call the entity “government,” and all of the politicians and their mercenaries become utterly indistinguishable from a giant organized crime syndicate, their “laws” no more valid than the threats of muggers and carjackers. And that, in reality, is what every “government” is: an illegitimate gang of thugs, thieves and murderers, masquerading as a rightful ruling body." -Larken Rose

Sounds like a bunch of conceited rich cunts to me (the guys on the radio show, not TED).....id like to hear from TED before making any decision.

Isn't that the Negative Zone? I'm fairly certain it works like however Marvel wants it to work. Sort of like the Power Cosmic. Stupid review judging it as a movie outside the bounds of comic book conventions.

Comics are silly, convoluted, and prefer form over function:

1. Thor and Iron Man are required to have pissing contests.
2. Sunglasses and eye patches make people without super powers look badass.
3. Banner on a motorcycle is a good juxtaposition against his Hulky-jump-through-the-air travel form.
4. Loki is a conceited god so the Iron Man delay works -- didn't this reviewer. already assess that Loki was there to convert and not kill?
5. Of course CAPTAIN AMERICA just jumped from a plane. Idiot.
6. Did he just judge the movie according the Captain America's silly costume? Idiot.
7. No lap dance? He wants to watch the Russian dude give Black Widow a lap dance? I'm confused.
8. Bad guys running laps happens in... most action films with bad guys that need to fill in some time and guide direction visually. Reeeaaaally dumb criticism.
9. Plasma screens? You'd prefer to see a cell phone and then a split screen with 4 other people on cell phones? WTF
10. Loki's scepter is also a space phone??? My phone is also a camera, GPS, medical adviser, blogging tool, gaming device, and if I could download an app that performed mind control, I would. Loki is a god so he can.
11. The hellicarrier was created by Jack Kirby. Fuck you, this is an Avengers movie.
12. Sweeping cameras may sound silly, but comic book logic dictates that this is fine. Why not?
13. His criticism of little girls being able to find Bruce Banner is a criticism of our emotional attachment to the Gavroche, not the Avengers. Is the mystique of a street smart urchin gone from our collective unconscious?
14. Hawkeye's virus arrow is perfectly executed and makes sense according to his abilities.
15. Thor being easily tricked by Loki using low brow tactics is true even in Norse mythology. What exactly are we critiquing here?
16. Loki's objective in being captured is partly him being an overly confidant asshole god. He's just sort of going around half cocked because he can and likes to do so. The gods aren't smarter than us, just more powerful and with magical abilities that trump technology. In fact, this means they don't need to try as hard and would definitely be candidates in the personality disorder department. Hell, for all we know they could suffer from intellectual disorders that would never have become an issue (aside from making them stupidly violent) considering their power.
17. Hawkeye versus Black Widow is not cool? Damn.
18. Fury also gave an intimidating death stare in Jurassic Park when Nedry's "Ah ah ah, you didn't say the magic word" security screen pops up. HOLD ONTO YOUR BUTTS. I liked the half reference.
19. If you have trouble understanding the powers of Mjölnir, why do you also complain about the plodding exposition?! These things require exposition and it's so arbitrary that it becomes plodding. Comics are FILLED with plodding exposition because of this and there's a point where you just have to know the characters. Do they explain superman's laser eyes in the movies? Actually... do they?
20. Black Widow is a weapons expert, including theoretical weaponry.
21. In the comics Hulk learns to control his powers and can even be intellectual in said form.
22. The alien invasion would do more damage than a nuclear bomb. These villains enslave entire worlds.
23. The ending requires homework??? THE ENTIRE SERIES OF MOVIES REQUIRES HOMEWORK.


That being said, I agree with a good number of the points:

1. The tesseract was a rebranding of the Cosmic Cube which has a long history in the Marvel universe. (So I guess this movie was made for comic book fans?)
2. Well lit facility. There should have been some sort of cloaking shield around it, which is perfectly acceptable in a comic book world, if not the real.
3. Cap's bet. I don't believe Cap would have done that because it isn't just.
4. Speaking in English to Germans. It would have been cool to hear him speak in German. Damn!
5. Hawkeye's arrow fucking up the hellicarrier. However, I could see this happening in a comic book, I just don't like it.
6. Captain America's ear piece and bad aim.
7. Tesseract mind control wearing off after blunt trauma.
8. Cap's super powers are kinda lame in these movies, but I'm sure if they weren't, then this review would contain criticism about how his human fists can smash through metal.
9. The aliens are a pretty shitty replacement for the Skrulls. This is what makes me the saddest.
10. Imiatating transformers... this bugged the crap out of me when I first saw the trailer. UGH!
11. Thor's lightning must have a long cooldown.
12. Yeah, it was pretty lame when the aliens died after they were cut off from the mother ship. Inferior to the Skrulls fo sho.

All religion IS man made, and it was designed by man to keep man in his place ie, servile to men who use it for power over man. And I resent the clear implication that I, as an atheist, am lacking in morality. Secular morals are far more humane than those based upon a 2000 year old myth. Just take the first 5 commandments, they have nothing to do with morality, they simply attest to the vainglorious, conceited, myth called god.

Dude, you can have spiritual insights and be an atheist. But you're also doing what many other religious people do that gives religion a bad name - presume that spirituality is synonymous with morality. It's not the same thing. Most atheists have a code or morality.

I'm not getting into my personal religious beliefs with you. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.

For the record, you don't have definitive proof an omnipotent being revealed to you the absolute truth. You may believe you do, but you don't. Believe it all you want, strongly believe in it. That doesn't bother me, but you have no definitive proof for certain that God exists, let alone revealed to you the exact truth of his nature, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, it is very arrogant to think you have this knowledge. It's not arrogant of me to say that. You have no slam dunk evidence prove he has revealed this to you, or even if he exists. That's why it's called faith. I feel god has visited me in my lifetime to reveal truth, but I don't dare go around telling people that he most certainly did, and his truth is my beliefs, and therefore I know the truth and anyone who contradicts me is wrong. That's quite frankly repugnant and shows a total disrespect for others and their beliefs that haven't a thing to do with you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.
Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit. Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing. Even if I wasn't certain about what I believe, what I said would still be factual.
Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. He had the audacity not just to say He is right, but that He is truth itself. I believe Him and agree. If I had doubts about who Jesus is, I wouldn't follow Him. A Christian makes an audacious decision; that Jesus is the living God.
That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.
Do you believe there is a God?
It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.
Of course it depends on the question. If I ask, was the Universe created, that has a right answer and a wrong answer. If I ask, what is the Universe, that has many answers. Words have meaning, and if we agree upon those meanings, we can come to a point of fact. If we define God as the Creator of the Universe, and Jesus as the historical person, Jesus of Nazereth, then there clearly is a yes or no answer.
Although it is promising that you believe in absolute truth, you are still trying to make it relative. You are saying there is a truth, but you are also implying that no one can know what it is. If someone did know what it is, would they be arrogant for being certain about it? No. You just seem to believe no one can be certain about it. There are two scenerios in which you could know the truth absolutely: 1. You are an omnipotent being. 2. An omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I fall under scenerio 2.
And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.
Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.
It absolutely matters whether Jesus is God because what you believe about Jesus determines where you spend eternity. If Jesus is God, He is the final arbiter of spiritual truth, and it is on His authority as God that I speak that truth. You think it's wrong to be certain of truth, yet absolute truth is exclusive truth. It is simply unreasonable for you to place the limitation of your uncertainty about truth upon others. If God came to you and gave you absolute and undeniable revelation, would you be wishy-washy about whether you believe it or not? Can you admit to yourself that God, if He wanted to, could give absolute revelation of the truth to anyone? If you can admit that, and you know that I believe that He has given such revelation, then you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to know what it is with certainty. That is exactly what you would expect from someone who has encountered the living God.
>> ^heropsycho:

You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.

Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit. Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing. Even if I wasn't certain about what I believe, what I said would still be factual.

Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. He had the audacity not just to say He is right, but that He is truth itself. I believe Him and agree. If I had doubts about who Jesus is, I wouldn't follow Him. A Christian makes an audacious decision; that Jesus is the living God.

That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.

Do you believe there is a God?

It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.

Of course it depends on the question. If I ask, was the Universe created, that has a right answer and a wrong answer. If I ask, what is the Universe, that has many answers. Words have meaning, and if we agree upon those meanings, we can come to a point of fact. If we define God as the Creator of the Universe, and Jesus as the historical person, Jesus of Nazereth, then there clearly is a yes or no answer.

Although it is promising that you believe in absolute truth, you are still trying to make it relative. You are saying there is a truth, but you are also implying that no one can know what it is. If someone did know what it is, would they be arrogant for being certain about it? No. You just seem to believe no one can be certain about it. There are two scenerios in which you could know the truth absolutely: 1. You are an omnipotent being. 2. An omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I fall under scenerio 2.

And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.

Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.

It absolutely matters whether Jesus is God because what you believe about Jesus determines where you spend eternity. If Jesus is God, He is the final arbiter of spiritual truth, and it is on His authority as God that I speak that truth. You think it's wrong to be certain of truth, yet absolute truth is exclusive truth. It is simply unreasonable for you to place the limitation of your uncertainty about truth upon others. If God came to you and gave you absolute and undeniable revelation, would you be wishy-washy about whether you believe it or not? Can you admit to yourself that God, if He wanted to, could give absolute revelation of the truth to anyone? If you can admit that, and you know that I believe that He has given such revelation, then you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to know what it is with certainty. That is exactly what you would expect from someone who has encountered the living God.

>> ^heropsycho:

You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.

That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.

It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.

And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.

Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If that's the way you want to see it. Messenger stated that he didn't think fornication was "wrong sex"..that he knew what it was and wasn't..and I said he doesn't know that because he has no insight into spiritual matters. What you think is "garbage" is simply a statement of fact from the Christian perspective...

It depends on the question. If you ask, what is life, you can have many answers, none of which captures the entire truth. On the question of whether Jesus is God, there is a right answer and a wrong answer.

He paid for the laptop. Fortunately, as an a American, he is still free enough to DO WHATEVER he wants with his stuff. For those of you with no children -- you have some conceit commenting on this individual's parenting skills.