Have to say, love the video, love the message that they are trying to get across that women have more options than the standard sexy-whatever on Halloween. Thanks for the vid.

But also this (while, parts of this anyway.. not sure if I buy the Mary Magdalene bit):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPPsf-Mi8FY

Women shouldn't criticize each others dress - this is divisive, not unifying. Also it just validates patriarchal notions of the chaste-loose binary and further sexualizes women's bodies. Revealing costumes are not always meant to be provocative, and even if they are, so what? Women should be free to express their sexuality without criticism from men or other women - anything else is repressive.

And I don't think the video is overtly trying to be critical of women who chose to dress "sexy", but I can't help but wonder if its underlying message is perhaps just that.

Overall I think it is a good video, showing women (perhaps young women in particular) that there are options beyond the types of costumes they may feel pressured into wearing. However, I think we also have to be careful not to fall into the same trap of categorizing women who chose to wear these costumes as shallow, sexually irresponsible, immoral or whatever other social meanings go into phrases like "keep your tits in".

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the message is simply "make your own choices and don't let society pressure you into being sexually objectified" then cool. But let's not hate on the women who choose to express their sexuality in the process.

but yeah.. I do like the video, just had to add my small stipulation

It's been a while since I watched it but I think he lost me at a bit where he concludes that there is no point, therefore the premise of living life as an atheist is false. My own response to this is that there does not need to be a point and, due to the sequential nature of his reasoning, everything that comes after this is flawed because of the false dichotomy. (I was reading the wikipedia list of logical fallacies last week )

>> ^shinyblurry:

Glad that you can see that..you might be the first. What do you specifically disagree on with the first video?
>> ^lampishthing:
Yeah, I don't agree with the first video but, if you take it as a given, what he says here makes sense.>> ^shinyblurry:
In context, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He started off by saying that you have to surrender freedom to the truth to get the deeper and richer freedom. Do you understand what he meant by that? For instance, let's say you decided to be an anarchist and did whatever you wanted instead of following the rule of law. Technically, you are exercising a lot more freedom as an anarchist. You are making your own rules, essentially. However, the truth is that you would actually be much less free, because once you gave up following the rules, you would no longer be accepted in the society. So, although you may be more free when you can do whatever you want, you give up that individual freedom to participate in the society, and that gives you a deeper and richer freedom. Truth can both destroy and liberate freedom. What matters is what we were designed for, what truth we have to surrender to to actually be free, which is what the video is talking about.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
holy shit.
"It is true.. that claiming to have the truth is a terrific way to destroy freedom.
And yet, there is a truth that we've gotta have to be free" ?!?!?!
You know what cognitive dissonance is.. right, shiny?

Glad that you can see that..you might be the first. What do you specifically disagree on with the first video?

>> ^lampishthing:

Yeah, I don't agree with the first video but, if you take it as a given, what he says here makes sense.>> ^shinyblurry:
In context, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He started off by saying that you have to surrender freedom to the truth to get the deeper and richer freedom. Do you understand what he meant by that? For instance, let's say you decided to be an anarchist and did whatever you wanted instead of following the rule of law. Technically, you are exercising a lot more freedom as an anarchist. You are making your own rules, essentially. However, the truth is that you would actually be much less free, because once you gave up following the rules, you would no longer be accepted in the society. So, although you may be more free when you can do whatever you want, you give up that individual freedom to participate in the society, and that gives you a deeper and richer freedom. Truth can both destroy and liberate freedom. What matters is what we were designed for, what truth we have to surrender to to actually be free, which is what the video is talking about.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
holy shit.
"It is true.. that claiming to have the truth is a terrific way to destroy freedom.
And yet, there is a truth that we've gotta have to be free" ?!?!?!
You know what cognitive dissonance is.. right, shiny?

Dag's house, Dag's rules. If you don't like it, then GTFO and make your own site. Nothing is stopping you.

Yeah, I don't agree with the first video but, if you take it as a given, what he says here makes sense.>> ^shinyblurry:

In context, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He started off by saying that you have to surrender freedom to the truth to get the deeper and richer freedom. Do you understand what he meant by that? For instance, let's say you decided to be an anarchist and did whatever you wanted instead of following the rule of law. Technically, you are exercising a lot more freedom as an anarchist. You are making your own rules, essentially. However, the truth is that you would actually be much less free, because once you gave up following the rules, you would no longer be accepted in the society. So, although you may be more free when you can do whatever you want, you give up that individual freedom to participate in the society, and that gives you a deeper and richer freedom. Truth can both destroy and liberate freedom. What matters is what we were designed for, what truth we have to surrender to to actually be free, which is what the video is talking about.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
holy shit.
"It is true.. that claiming to have the truth is a terrific way to destroy freedom.
And yet, there is a truth that we've gotta have to be free" ?!?!?!
You know what cognitive dissonance is.. right, shiny?

>> ^bobknight33:

The left is all inclusive unless you have a different point of view.
Who had anti gay signs? Over 21 million people at there on 8/1. I would guess there might be a few but go ahead Show one, just one. Not Photoshoped.

Its easier to just swing through the drive through.

And thus you get the point. These people won't come out and actively admit to their discriminatory views, but make fast food a proxy for denying a minority the same rights and they show up in the millions. These are the same people that obscure, yet act on their viewpoints on a day-to-day basis, making the lives of minorities more difficult than most can grasp.


It's unfortunate we have to go through this, but we humans evolved to fear things we don't understand. Thus the best thing we can do is work to increase understanding.

>> ^Barseps:

>> ^Payback:
I don't think that driver was from Russia.
Just going by all the other dash cam vids...

You just might be right there. "Russia" removed.
He's cursing in Russian, cars are russian, traffic signs are like in Russia. Make your own conclusions.

Matter of time before IKEA sells "make your own" kits.

Batshitcrazy psychobabble.

So if a female Muslim decided to be an American Capitalist instead of following the strict and oppressive lifestyle of Islamic society..

In actuality, is she less free?

Sure she's free do whatever she wants: dress the way she likes, socialize with males, choose her own husband, not be subject to abuse and honor-punishments.

But is she truly free? considering that she will no longer be accepted by and free to engage in Islamic society?!

See what i mean?.. psychobabble

>> ^shinyblurry:

In context, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He started off by saying that you have to surrender freedom to the truth to get the deeper and richer freedom. Do you understand what he meant by that? For instance, let's say you decided to be an anarchist and did whatever you wanted instead of following the rule of law. Technically, you are exercising a lot more freedom as an anarchist. You are making your own rules, essentially. However, the truth is that you would actually be much less free, because once you gave up following the rules, you would no longer be accepted in the society. So, although you may be more free when you can do whatever you want, you give up that individual freedom to participate in the society, and that gives you a deeper and richer freedom. Truth can both destroy and liberate freedom. What matters is what we were designed for, what truth we have to surrender to to actually be free, which is what the video is talking about.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
holy shit.
"It is true.. that claiming to have the truth is a terrific way to destroy freedom.
And yet, there is a truth that we've gotta have to be free" ?!?!?!
You know what cognitive dissonance is.. right, shiny?

In context, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He started off by saying that you have to surrender freedom to the truth to get the deeper and richer freedom. Do you understand what he meant by that? For instance, let's say you decided to be an anarchist and did whatever you wanted instead of following the rule of law. Technically, you are exercising a lot more freedom as an anarchist. You are making your own rules, essentially. However, the truth is that you would actually be much less free, because once you gave up following the rules, you would no longer be accepted in the society. So, although you may be more free when you can do whatever you want, you give up that individual freedom to participate in the society, and that gives you a deeper and richer freedom. Truth can both destroy and liberate freedom. What matters is what we were designed for, what truth we have to surrender to to actually be free, which is what the video is talking about.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

holy shit.
"It is true.. that claiming to have the truth is a terrific way to destroy freedom.
And yet, there is a truth that we've gotta have to be free" ?!?!?!
You know what cognitive dissonance is.. right, shiny?

It's one thing to add an item to the menu of a restaurant that serves 250 daily. How many chefs can say they have 25 million customers? >> ^alien_concept:

Head chef at Maccy D's, that's like the opposite of what any chef aspires to when they get into the trade, surely?

>> ^robbersdog49:

Or, alternatively, you could buy some good quality burgers from your local butcher and have something actually tasty. Seriously, who goes to McDonalds and thinks 'I really want to make this at home'?


Some people love their burgers. Accept it.

>> ^robbersdog49:

Or, alternatively, you could buy some good quality burgers from your local butcher and have something actually tasty. Seriously, who goes to McDonalds and thinks 'I really want to make this at home'?


I did and do. HONESTLY, I am not matching your jack ass comment with another one. That is the TRUTH !

>> ^Unsung_Hero:

The Old Testament of the bible is fun to read. It's chalked full of God smiting people, talking snakes, rape, murder, love triangles, and magic.
The New Testament is like the instructions from IKEA... You should probably read it but it's easy to convince yourself not to.


Don't forget the incest; the OT looooooves itself some incest. And foreskin fetishes.

As for the NT, it would be like an IKEA manual if the latter condemned you to eternal torture for shopping with another brand, or (God forbid!) making your own furniture.

I thought this was make your own lyrics, I am to understand this is just a fill in the blank ?

No fun in that.

revved up like a deuce, another runner in the night, pftt