But it's not really solving a problem, is it? If you have a 3rd Testament then people a century later need a 4th Testament to understand the 3rd. It's just endless guessing.

The many confusions & consistencies deal with God's actions toward the peoples of its time. In this video's case, Paul to the Corinthian believers (people-people). My "narrow-minded" guess, is the "women" at the Corinthian church were there not as seekers of the Faith, but as wives just accompanying their husbands, so these females gathered around and started gossiping and various sundry conversations, turning bothersome to the brothers listening to the sermons... so that's why Paul ordered the women silenced. Now, that's MY interpretation, you can argue it's sexist/degrading of me calling the women gossipy (but bear with me for argument sake, because those men at those times are likely sexist!)... but that's one possible scenario. There can very well be other equally (or likely more) convincing scenarios, but only one of them is the truth. But which one is? Who has the authority to know and write down the true case in this 3rd Testament?

People have been discussing for centuries and I don't see the point of reading the Bible literally and try to interpret meanings on these small things. Humans in the Bible all make mistakes. We need to keep on progressing to make the world a better place. That's what Jesus advocated... Picking faults of the people in Bible is useful if we use them as examples of never repeating their faults. But it's no good if we're too focused on finding faults but lost sight of doing good.

Ahhhh.
That would do it.
"Non-degraded signal"

I assume as a NATO partner...

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant

So, you admit your group is at least shirking responsibility as much as you feel OWS and BLM are? That's quite a lot.

Eureka, California. I watched them be violent and attack anyone disagreeing. I'm 100% positive it wasn't the only place that happened.

So, you think you can completely separate republicans and their actions from "conservatives" who identify as republican, are embraced fully by republicans and courted by them, and vote them into power, but all democrats are incontrovertibly violent SJWs, even though dems don't accept them and never court them. As I said, shirking responsibility for your actions....it's the conservative way.


First, I've addressed the difference, republicans embrace the insane teabaggers, democrats rail against SJWs. Second, look at numbers. A few thousand ignorant students is far less than hundreds of thousands of outraged ignorant ball lickers.

The average, typical liberal is protesting an idiot in power selling us down the river to the highest bidder and eroding hard won civil rights. They are not typically students (no matter how much you wish they were because many of the student protests are easy to degrade and dismiss, but most protests/rallies aren't).

Professional paid protesters...another disproven bit of right wing propaganda. You watch WAY too much Alex Jones....why not bring up the pedophile ring Clinton heads, or the murders she personally committed, or the fish people she keeps in a hidden tank in her office, or the violence they planned for the inauguration?
Sad. Biggly sad.

As well as that from Charles Dickens, who wrote in "A Christmas Carol":

"Oh, Man, look here! Look, look, down here!" exclaimed the Ghost.

They were a boy and a girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched, and twisted them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat enthroned, devils lurked, and glared out menacing. No change, no degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and dread.

Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.

"Spirit, are they yours?" Scrooge could say no more.

"They are Man's," said the Spirit, looking down upon them. "And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. BEWARE THEM BOTH, and all of their degree, BUT MOST OF ALL BEWARE THE BOY, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!" cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. "Slander those who tell it ye. Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. AND ABIDE THE END."
(emphasis mine)

Ignorance is a bill that always come due and it comes due like a motherfucker when you will least expect it and can least afford it.

To quote Orwell:

"The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

Reality is a motherfucker, too: if ignorance is the fall, then reality is the sudden stop at the end.

In canon, Logan's healing factor is actually impeded by the Adamantium. Magneto pulls it out of him at one point and we discover the claws are bone, and his healing factor is virtually instantaneous. Later, Apocolypse chooses him as a Horseman and re-applies the Adamantium, which also degrades his healing factor.

"Don't play on playground equipment when your parents are cheap bastards and buy 10 year old second hand shit after sunlight and the elements have degraded the plastic to a point where a hummingbird fart will pulverise it to dust, Edward."

the reason these videos are believable is because of the production value of them (and the subsequent degradation via youtube encoding). i've called out one or 2 of these as real because i know how much work it takes to do that level of realism and it was incredibly unlikely a team that large and that professional would spend that much time/effort/money just to make a fake video or make a point. i guess i was wrong.

the shark one was really well done and would have been a pain in the ass to do.

No, you make one fatal error. You are comparing Clinton supporters with Bernie supporters. That is incredibly incorrect and it makes me shudder. You should compare Clinton to Trump supporters---ie., the entire republican party has sided with him, minus a few who will vote third party. Clinton supporters are exactly like that. Bandwagon, that's me! Not to degrade them but put a D in their mouths and they are happy.

On the other hand, Bernie supporters have more integrity and are tired of the funnel-effect of the lesser of two evils bullshit whereby more evil comes to our voting booths.

So yeah, maybe 1% of Clinton supporters will be mad and vote elsewhere (Like Jill) but what, 25% of Sanders will? Yeah...not quite the same.

Yes, it is good for the soul. I'm glad you believe that.

Actually, the first two comments were, paraphrasing here but, "Trump is horrible" and "Charlie Sheen is the voice of reason (and that's whack)".

Your interpretation is that I'm negative and mean. Pointing out truths or untruths, whilst often uncomfortable for many, is not negative or mean. It's not a new, an old, or any low at all. It is a neutral observation.

I've not posted more than one video because I don't see the need to. I only posted the first one to explore the mechanism involved in posting. I've got plenty of material posted by others to look at and comment on, and not nearly enough time in the day to do everything I'd like to do.

I'll tell you what I see as negative and mean. The constant degradation of other human beings because one doesn't agree with their politics. And that includes both Trump and Hillary.

And to think Scorsese was complaining that cinema had degraded into an audience led product when the original film came out. Lucky he gave up and sold out or he might put a gun in his mouth (again)

Yep. Death's not the problem. Pain and degradation of mind and body are unpleasant, but without death it's hell.

This message brought to you by Happy Happy Thoughts... for all your happy thought needs.

Likewise.

You ought to know better than to believe the outrageous rebranding of censorship as something that can only be accomplished by government fiat, but in doing so you're ignoring real power structures that exist and giving free rein to regressives who want to sanitise and degrade our culture.

With all respect, and much consideration towards your emotional disposition to the matter, your vehemence and near maleficence on the issue is not met with similar kind, and is not respected by me as a form of open discussion.

Although I may agree that the reporter does indeed present himself as an a*****e, obviously degrading whatever planned speech or agenda this student had, it is not worth the spew which you present...

I must agree, however, that the general western population does little to nothing towards the meaningful progression of Human society.

On the other hand, what you advocate is a pipe dream, the likes of which I cannot fathom working, even with my liberal UK perspective. Though I do believe in banks being controlled, so they don't become to large to fail, as well as re-distribution of wealth from the top "1%" classes, how could one, if caring for the safety of their nation, advocate the lessening of funds towards a strong military?

I must also put into perspective, as I am guessing you are an American, what you Americans have compared to the world. You want to throw away your rights to bear arms, not considering what you would do without them. Here in London, we have no way to defend ourselves against getting mugged, many times at gunpoint(handguns are banned here, get the picture?). You want to stop giving money to your military, and ISIS just killed over a hundred people in France. You have more control over your personal freedom than anyone else, not to mention the strongest nation in the world, and you want to abandon the practices which got you there... Brilliant.