How many people would stereotype these guys because of their pants and their hair and the color of their skin? How many people would look at them and use exactly the word you're thinking of? And how many of those people do you think would exhibit even the tiniest fraction of humanity, kindness and decency that these men showed?

I really hope this video changes someone's mind.

@A10anis
while i do truly appreciate your change of tone,you fail to address that your original comment was smug and condescending.
which is what i was addressing.

and the word "ALL" is most certainly a blanket statement.

there are 4500 known religions (many defunct at present).
so maybe you can understand why i criticized your commentary as being overly generalized.

and i would also like to clarify a few things.
1.i find you to be an intelligent and insightful sifter.which is why i called you out.NOT to be an ass or to be confrontational but rather because i think you are a person who is better than your original comment.there are many i wouldnt have wasted my time on.

2.i am not a huge fan of organized religion.i have some serious issues with those highly influential institutions.

3.i actually agree with your basic premise:religion is control by use of fear.
so my issue with your original comment was not your basic premise but in its delivery.

4.dont be too quick to judge ALL religions solely based on doctrine and dogma.at its core religions are just human kind trying to make sense of reality and their place in it.religion is the beginnings of philosophy,and while it can be steeped in superstition and magic thinking,it has also offered some incredibly profound insights and understandings.
socrates,aristotle,plato..these were the beginnings of secular philosophy but before that? it was religion that tackled the big questions.

5.you really should watch the video.the book of enoch is...well..a bizarre apocryphal book.

anyways.i always enjoy your commentary and i hope you take my response with the humanity it was intended.

I appreciate the vote for my intelligence, but I was hoping my intended conclusion would be more understood.

What I basically meant by that was: what if what clay is to us in the difference of perceived intelligence, happens to be what we are to a supposed higher-being.

You can never rule out the impossible, and as much as I believe in human kinds miracle of existence and legitimate accomplishments on the human-scale, I can never agree to be so egotistical as to not accept the possibility that I am far less consequential than a molecule in some other unfathomably-complex creatures universe.

In the end: doesn't much matter! We should just all have sex to our hearts content, and make sure everyone like us is warm at night and well fed.

So... he wants to degrade a brand by giving it to homeless, who are (sadly) perceived as the lowest of the human kind? Like... cool kids don't want to wear AF because homeless people wear it. Am i the only one who feels a dissonance between the purpose and the method? If you don't like AF just don't buy it. If you really want to go gorilla, buy a can of red paint and fucking smear it all over the AF shop...

I think there is some definite hyperbole in your statement but I agree with what you've said on the main. Christians are called to be good stewards and we have largely ignored that command. As a former hardcore environmentalist I have a first hand understanding of what the tension is on either side. On one hand, the thought process behind the environmental movement is that this is the only Earth we have, and we must zealously protect its treasures because they cannot be replaced. Once they're gone, they are gone forever. On the other hand, the thought process behind more than a few Christians is that this Earth was given to us by God, and we have dominion over it. There is no reason to worry about destroying it because God Himself will be destroying it upon the second coming of Christ. The Earth will then be recreated and it will be overseen by God going into eternity.

These points of view are exactly contrary to one another and can hardly be reconciled. For the Christian, the tension the bible gives us is between steward and subdue. We are not only instructed to be good stewards, but also to subdue the Earth. Environmentalists hate the very thought of that and would prefer that human interference in natural affairs would approach zero. In the extreme of environmentalist thought, human beings are entirely expendable and should be culled until they do not significantly impact the biosphere. This is of course is entirely foreign to the mind of the Christian, who understands that the very point of the Earth is to be a habitation for human kind. Christians on the main are much more interested in the welfare of other human beings rather than animals and see animals as expendable. An animal has no eternal destiny spoken of in the bible, but human beings do.

As to where I stand, I care about animals and the environment. The issue of global warming is irrelevant to me; it's a doomsday scenario with no teeth. Even if it is somewhat true, it is not how the world is going to end. But I do care and so do many Christians. I don't think we should just run roughshod over this world and inflict undue suffering on creatures to exact some kind of profit. Rather, I think we should intelligently manage our resources and distribute them equitably. I think we could probably learn a lot from the Indians who managed to live harmoniously with their environment. On the other hand, I am not against drilling or logging or anything else that environmentalists hate, within reason. Unfortunately, human beings are not reasonable creatures; they are sinful and greedy to exploit anything they can for personal benefit. There is irrational hatred on both sides, and they are both being played by the adversary. I know people on the inside of the environmental movement and the infighting that goes on because of the gigantic egos and hypersensitivity is almost comical. Most seem to be in it for their own glory and they get in the way of anyone who actually wants to make a difference.

Christians should be setting the example but some of what you're dealing with isn't born again, spirit filled people, but apostate, carnal Christianity. Around 80 percent of the country professes to follow the Savior, but when you ask very specific questions like are you born again, justified by grace, etc the number goes down into the 30's. This isn't an excuse but it is the reality.

How sneaky those corporate Darwinist's Monkey elites have become, Encana is a Canadian Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encana

If there is ever backlash and finger pointing done in Washington well they can blame foreign entities....or have a good case to exemption of accountability by their monkey lawyers that EnCana is not bind to the same standard as Halliburton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton would be in the United Sates...

Clever Monkeys washing their duty hands...sick



Clever but not very smart..... this is not the type of human values I was tough by my parents...

I even serve my country for those elites Darwinist Monkeys ..... sick

This is evil at its best and pursues of wealth , creed is evil and in today's Universities around the world the Darwinist theories are tough and those of swore to his theories will thrive to the top as monkey's foundations (darwinist ideologies) of evolution and survival of the fetus theories is implanted into human harts....

This is the fruits of ignorance and Inhuman ideologies where Maximizing Shareholders values trump brotherhoods......

No matter what citizen say, do or wish for.....darwinist SS elites have taken over the world to form a super elite club base on Monkey principle....

The world has lost it virtues of human kindness and dignity when JFK was assassinated....

Welcome to the jungle.....

Ex-Gate Keeper of the lost free world....

Or, instead of pursuing piecemeal personal steps that have no real effect and seeking technological solutions which always seem to create more problems than they solve, we could end our consumerist culture which sees extraction of resources and consumption of everything as human kind's destiny and right

I'm just going to give my opinion here, mostly because George Carlin is my hero, and because I'm interested in the topic:

Regarding things being offensive:
There isn't any topic known anywhere to human kind that won't offend someone. Whether it's daisies or pancakes or pinwheels someone, somewhere, can be offended by it. I guarantee it. This is just my opinion, but I don't think that anyone has the right to 'not be offended.'

Regarding comedians:
People mostly don't seem to realize the importance of humor in all of our lives. Comedians play a very important role in the collective human community that cannot be replaced. They help us deal with parts of ourselves that would otherwise be unacceptable for us to even sometimes think about. Just like the court jester who might otherwise get himself beheaded if he were a normal person suggesting the king was fat. Almost all humor, successful or not, makes people feel uncomfortable. The very best humor makes people really uncomfortable. Laughter itself is a response to these same situations and events that we just have a little-bit of a hard time dealing with. I think this is why comedians, while onstage, are given a free pass. Even their televised specials get edited for content, but the only time a comedian gets kicked off stage in a club is when no one is laughing. What they're saying implies a lot more about the people laughing than it does about the comedian. Follow me?

And it's important to remember that most comedians are artists who are immersed in their material. Most have specific routines that are worked out over and over again, tweeking the tone and meter until they become almost meaningless to the comedians themselves. This is why you rarely see experienced comedians laughing at their own jokes, they've just heard them too many times. And even when they are performing improvisationally, like Tosh was during the event in question, they aren't saying things that they think are funny, specifically, they are saying things that they think the audience will find funny. It may seem like a small distinction, but it can make a big difference in understanding why some jokes are made. Some comedians have a style based on saying shocking, offensive things, and it's they're job. They are paid to make an audience laugh, and whether you like him or not, Tosh gets paid.

And the particular incident and joke:
This whole thing was brought up by a woman who was at a show and heard something she didn't like. She retorted back from the audience that rape isn't funny. To which Tosh retorted back that it would be funny if the woman was "raped by like five guys." Now, according to the woman, that made her actually fear for her safety and she got up and left. I'm not going to debate her sanity, if she really felt threatened, then that's terrible and I feel bad for her. But there are a few things that need to be pointed out here:

1: Tosh didn't threaten anyone. Had he said: "you five guys over there should rape this woman," it would not only be offensive to many people, but it also could have been perceived as a legitimate threat that, maybe, could have been pursued legally.

2: Hecklers are always dealt with harshly. And so should they be. Complain all you want about a person outside of a show but when you go to a comedy club, you have agreed that it's that person's time to talk. And so has everyone else who paid money to listen to them, not you. They're up there making a living, succeeding or failing at the expense of their own ass, not yours. It should be noted here that the woman said she left the room to the laughter of the entire audience.

3: You do not have the right to not be offended, especially if you are at a fucking comedy club. There was a pretty famous incident with Joan Rivers when she was joking about deaf people on stage, and a man in the audience stood up and started yelling at her because his daughter was deaf and he didn't find her jokes funny. Well, Joan Rivers responded that her own mother was deaf, and that she'd had to deal with that on her own terms. Comedy was something that helped her deal with that (because comedy is a useful tool) and if he didn't like it, he could go fuck himself. And that's the thing, you never know people's story. The girl at Tosh's show couldn't know Tosh's experience with rape, just like he couldn't know hers. And if you don't think people who've experienced a major tragedy can joke about the horrible events in their lives, I invite you to go watch some Bob Saget material. Humor is subjective. Saying you don't think something should be allowed because it's not funny, is exactly the same as saying something shouldn't be allowed because you don't think it's funny. Whatever it is, you can bet that someone out there finds it funny, even if it's nonsense.

Rape jokes are hardly ever funny. Even Carlin's few never got much of a laugh. But jokes are thoughts, and I'd really rather people stop trying to police thoughts. If someone finds a joke threatening, then deal with the threat, not the joke. And if someone finds a joke offensive, well...

I didn't downvote your comment because you critiqued rape culture. I downvoted your comment because I found it rude. I thought Hybrid's joke was funny and certainly was not thinking it being rape related.

Obviously you disagree. I see your point, and I am sorry you have been hurt bad enough to lash out like this. But there are better ways to disagree than calling him a loser and saying he was talking about raping women.

Maybe I am priviledged, maybe I have lived a sheltered life and I know am lucky. It does not make me a bad person. If you think I am ignorant, there are better, nicer ways to educate me, and my 'anti-human' kind.

>> ^tsquire1:


The fact that a comment critiquing rape culture gets downvoted, and one that promotes rape culture gets up voted, reveals a heavy nerdbro tendency on this site that is really quite sick.
No, I dont care if it is 'just a joke'. You infantile nethipsters that make these comments never have to worry about being raped, never have to worry about what they wear walking down the street and if it will promote 'catcalls'. You don't have to worry about facing violence by going out at night or, if you do get sexually assaulted, have to worry about who will even believe you.
Plainly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
That is why it is funny to you. Because you are that removed from reality. Your laughter is a privileged laughter. Your cynicism is anti-human.
>> ^Hybrid:
You wouldn't be saying that 30 mins after I put some Rohypnol in your drink.

you're probably right... i made a longer list initially and realized it was entirely composed of writers. i couldn't decide if it's because those are the people i've paid the most attention to in my life or if its because the nature of success is so incredibly different for a writer than a ceo. >> ^dag:

Maybe it's only the inventors. Da Vinci, Edison and Jobs fit that bill. Deep thinkers and pure artists are pretty different. >> ^peggedbea:
I'm pretty sure kurt vonnegut was at least reasonably kind. He wrote so many books about the value of human kindness.
crispin glover is also unabashedly sensitive and kind and contains all the charm of someone who is not at all charming until they're speaking about something they love. i guess you could argue that he is not a genius, but then i would just tell you to attend a viewing for one of his insane art house films and stick around for the three hour Q&A he'll host when it's finished. genius.
oh i bet neil degrasse tyson is only slightly prickish, and only in the kindest most charming of ways.
>> ^dag:
Just as a thought experiment - can you name one who was well thought of as an all-around nice guy? Edison was an asshole. I've heard that Da Vinci was a real prick.>> ^quantumushroom:
But do geniuses need to be assholes?
No. No they don't.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Maybe it's only the inventors. Da Vinci, Edison and Jobs fit that bill. Deep thinkers and pure artists are pretty different. >> ^peggedbea:

I'm pretty sure kurt vonnegut was at least reasonably kind. He wrote so many books about the value of human kindness.
crispin glover is also unabashedly sensitive and kind and contains all the charm of someone who is not at all charming until they're speaking about something they love. i guess you could argue that he is not a genius, but then i would just tell you to attend a viewing for one of his insane art house films and stick around for the three hour Q&A he'll host when it's finished. genius.
oh i bet neil degrasse tyson is only slightly prickish, and only in the kindest most charming of ways.
>> ^dag:
Just as a thought experiment - can you name one who was well thought of as an all-around nice guy? Edison was an asshole. I've heard that Da Vinci was a real prick.>> ^quantumushroom:
But do geniuses need to be assholes?
No. No they don't.

I'm pretty sure kurt vonnegut was at least reasonably kind. He wrote so many books about the value of human kindness.

crispin glover is also unabashedly sensitive and kind and contains all the charm of someone who is not at all charming until they're speaking about something they love. i guess you could argue that he is not a genius, but then i would just tell you to attend a viewing for one of his insane art house films and stick around for the three hour Q&A he'll host when it's finished. genius.

oh i bet neil degrasse tyson is only slightly prickish, and only in the kindest most charming of ways.

>> ^dag:

Just as a thought experiment - can you name one who was well thought of as an all-around nice guy? Edison was an asshole. I've heard that Da Vinci was a real prick.>> ^quantumushroom:
But do geniuses need to be assholes?
No. No they don't.

the humans kind of ruined it

>> ^shinyblurry:

I don't believe the government should regulate our personal lives. It's a fine line. Take the heroin example. Heroin is so dangerous, and so deadly. Overdosing is not hard, at all..and I personally know a lot of people who would probably become heroin addicts rather quickly if it was easy as picking it up in the convenience store.
An incontrovertible fact is, if heroin is legalized, people are going to die from it who wouldn't have otherwise. Is it worth lives to make a dangerous and deadly drug available to masses under the pretense of liberty? Why can't we be rational, and reasonable instead..and say, well the cause of liberty should outweigh the harm..but we will collectively decide that some of these are just so dangerous that it is worth impringing on our liberty to keep them illegal.
The bible says that everything is permisable(besides what is explicitly forbidden) but not everything is beneficial. Likewise, though liberty is valuable it is not always beneficial to the whole. Remember, when liberty is taken to the extreme you have anarchy.


Know what else is dangerous? Sky diving, bungee jumping, base jumping, some parkour, motorcycle racing, f1, trick motorcycle jumps, you fucking name it, we do it.

In my own personal opinion, it is not the place of a government to act as my mummy, taking dangerous toys off me, reprimanding me for doing something hazardous to my health. Human kind has lived for many long long years without that kind of omnipresent babysitter.

It is not government's job to say what you can and can't do with or to your own body as long as you are not directly harming anyone else in the act of doing it. Part of being free is having the responsibility for the effects of your actions on yourself and on the people you love.

(inb4 drugs harm others) The only reason drugs harm others right now is because they are illegal.

Edit:
Whoops i forgot to add - ron paul continues to say things that make absolute perfect undeniable sense! Can he come over here and run a political party please? I want to see/know more.

Of course, you are correct. Greater evils do exist, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to this one. Christianity is sinister, in that it guises itself as a good thing "do unto others etc", but in reality it is a means for people to control other people - not just enslave them, but control their minds, make them willing slaves, and that to me is even more scary than just being oppressed.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^gwiz665:
I want that. Christianity is a pox on the human mind and must be purged for our continued survival.
>> ^VoodooV:
I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.


I think there are greater threats to human kind than "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in this world.