I love Ricky, but his false modesty grates on me more with every mounting accolade and interview.

modesty is sexy.

I wonder:

- how modest is forced modesty?
- how modest is it to force others to wear something according to your beliefs?
- how modest is it to allow only one sex to show off their upper body?
- how far-fetched is it to expect that the members of one group that is a minority almost everywhere in the world, not be so reticent to minority's freedoms, and not uphold the idea of a "closed community"?
- how about a public pool where bikinis would be enforced, perhaps in a town where the majority decides they are uncomfortable seeing the covered minority?
- how interesting it is that this reminds of totalitarian systems and religious states...

Ah, liberté, égalité, fraternité...

ioa

Ball flexin' The playground gymnastics scenes remind me of
</modesty>
my super-duper awesome sift http://www.videosift.com/video/Ghetto-Gymnastics (is it the same playground?)

I know what you mean finchy, he does have an enormous ego. But I honestly prefer that to false modesty.

He does do some amazing things in cinema, and he's an all rounder, it's no wonder he's so full of himself

Wow they should have Attenburough narrate that shit:

"And here we have the feral-teenage-drunk-slut performing her traditional hang-over dance. Notice the lack of modesty brought on by delusions of beauty and an inflated sense of pride. Her strategically placed mating pigmentation will guide any lower IQ males in the vicinity towards her bursting-with-anger genitalia. Those with higher functioning brains steer clear and avoid eye contact, lest the crazed gaze causes them to vomit a little."

The very end is awesome. That is false modesty if I've ever seen it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'futurama, fry, dr Zoidburg, zap brannigan' to 'futurama, fry, dr Zoidberg, zapp brannigan, farnsworth, modesty award' - edited by gwiz665

Tags for this video have been changed from 'baby, rabbit, grooming, white, puffball, of, happiness' to 'baby, rabbit, grooming, white, puffball, of, happiness, modesty' - edited by jonny

karaidl:

I'm guessing for the biggest penis award we'd be going on the honor system. That's cool. Mine's 13". When soft.
If you require photographic evidence then I won't compete. Modesty forbids.

eric3579:

kronos did a blankfist and accidentally moved it to Music talk. Now we're all paying for his sins.

I feel so embarrassed. He keeps saying house, but really it's a town home. We're neighbors in one of those big same-looking developments. Well, when I get home after a long, hard day of honest American work I go around to the back of the town home and kick in the kitchen window to get inside. Then I strip and nap on my couch resting a simple throw pillow atop my buttocks to protect my modesty should the children come downstairs for a glass of water.
Well, funny thing is that I accidentally kicked in my neighbors window and slept on his couch. I also have stacks of records lying around and a similar style couch, so, you can understand my error. My mistake, no need to kick me around and arrest me.

First of all: Condell doesnt attack everyone who has an islamic background, he attacks the lunatics who wants sharia law imposed in england, who wants to spread islam to include all the world (in accordance with the Quran, of course) To understand anything of what he's talking about, take a look at this report from Belgium, where Belgian law and civil right has been tarnished by militant islam in certain parts of the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-inob20I_Y0
Europe is under threat by this nonsense

Also, the opponent of the woman in the video you linked to, you may look at him as some fringe lunatic extremist within the islamic world, but I will argue that this is not the case, yes as I said of course there are moderate forces within Islam, and I applaud the efforts of those guys, but believe me, they are certainly not speaking the loudest here in Europe, and they are not setting the agenda. Time and again, we get these imams on TV saying the tried old "religion of peace" nonsense, and then they walk out of the TV-studio and into the mosque where the pious are again told about the immorality and filth of western culture and the worthlessness of the infidels.

A brave young woman named Kadra exposed one of these frauds that supported and aided female circumcision in the Norwegian-Somalian immigrants, some time later, she in all modesty suggested that perhaps one should try and re-think the view on women as portrayed in the Quran, shortly after, she was attacked by eight men and beaten up on the street as they screamed she had insulted their "prophet"
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1734869.ece

Islam, like all religion, is poison. its victims are all of mankind, but first and foremost the women and children needlessly suffering under oppression and indoctrination, when the men thinks this disease makes them the allies of God.

Look - I'm tired, and reading back over the posts I think we probably agree more than we disagreee - principally we are both concerned about fanaticism and intolerance. I'll make one final point then I'm bowing out. When you say:

"The problem is that most religions, if they are not washed out beyond recognition to some kind of semi-secular "Just be nice to everyone"-philosophy that doesnt really have much basis in the actual text they are based on, Is in principle inflexible and intolerant. "

I have to disagree with you. Tolerant forms of religion which are compatible with secularism and modernity do have their basis in the text - just not in a literal interpretation of the text. For example, as I have argued before on the Sift:

"Literalism is a problem that plagues all religions. Most Islamic scholars focus on the maqasid al-Shari'ah - the higher objectives of the Shari'ah - such as charity, selflessness, respect, modesty, fraternity, justice. Anyone who wishes to understand the classical theory of maqasid al-Shari'ah should read the works of Imam Shatibi - here is a link to a very good article on Shatibi's theory of the maqasid written by one of the greatest modern scholars of Islamic law - Mohammad Hashim Kamali.

Literalist interpretations of Islamic law have never been popular or widely held in the Islamic world. Until the foundation of Saudi Arabia the Hanbali school of law - the most literal of the four orthodox Sunni schools of law - had very few followers. Historically there was a fifth school of Sunni Islamic law - the Zahiris - but the school died out because its literalist views were unpopular and incapable of dealing with an ever changing world.

Unfortunately a vocal minority use a literal interpretation of Islamic texts to justify aggression against Muslims who don't share their views, and non-Muslims. Equally unfortunately, a vocal minority of atheists use a literal interpretation of religious texts to justify aggression against Muslims and other religious peoples."

Ultimately I'm just trying to get people to see things from the other side and hopefully foster a bit of tolerance and understanding.

"Both of those books are way to old to be taken literally, that´s all."

Literalism is a problem that plagues all religions. Most Islamic scholars focus on the maqasid al-Shari'ah - the higher objectives of the Shari'ah - such as charity, selflessness, respect, modesty, fraternity, justice. Anyone who wishes to understand the classical theory of maqasid al-Shari'ah should read the works of Imam Shatibi - here is a link to a very good article on Shatibi's theory of the maqasid written by one of the greatest modern scholars of Islamic law - Mohammad Hashim Kamali.

Literalist interpretations of Islamic law have never been popular or widely held in the Islamic world. Until the foundation of Saudi Arabia the Hanbali school of law - the most literal of the four orthodox Sunni schools of law - had very few followers. Historically there was a fifth school of Sunni Islamic law - the Zahiris - but the school died out because its literalist views were unpopular and incapable of dealing with an ever changing world.

Unfortunately a vocal minority use a literal interpretation of Islamic texts to justify aggression against Muslims who don't share their views, and non-Muslims. Furthermore, idiots like quantumushroom use the same literalist interpretation of Islamic texts to justify American/British/Israeli imperialism and to foster hatred of the Islamic world.

In reply to your comment:
“"Ban the Burkah, or any such coverings for the women of Islam.....a symbol of species decay, subjugation, and demeaning inhumane treatment."

I agree with banning the Burka - there is nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith which says that women should be covered, and the burka is a barbaric and cruel institution. As for the hijab, women should be able to make their own mind up whether they wear it or not. One of the key principles in Islam is that 'there is no compulsion in religion' لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّين (Qur'an 2:256). Unfortunately this is a principle which many reactionary elements choose to forget! ”



What of the women who choose to wear the Burkah, as seen numerous times in your recent post http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Women-of-Islam-Veiling-Seclusion-Great-Documentary . Wanting to wear the veil/hijab/burqa/niqaab is, according to those women, a personal choice. But it hints at how much trust they have in their society, a grave conclusion to be made there.

Besides being a personal choice, what about the direct mention and demand of such things in numerous religious documents? (setting aside the 'no compulsion in religion' issue we've talked about briefly)

Gwaan, honestly I'm not so sure you can say that "nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith which says that women should be covered" is true... Depending on the translation of these verses, you could justify that the best women of Islam (the role models for other Muslim women, the wives of the Prophet) were commanded to veil up (to what extent? depends on translation)

In the Quran - 33:59 and 24:31
In the Hadith - Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282 (Sahih Al-Bukhari), Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368 (Sahih Al-Bukhari), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148 (Sahih Al-Bukhari), and a number of others in Abu Dawood books...

It just seems like a battle over semantics to me over how much clothing = modesty...