seedless watermelons are the pits
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Petey-Greene-How-to-eat-Watermelon-Subbed

Petey Greene - How to eat Watermelon (Subbed) has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Petey-Greene-How-to-eat-Watermelon-Subbed

Petey!

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Jinx:
I dont think he got schooled at all. Well, unless you think ad homs are cool.

He talked, and acted, like a fool--he got called a fool.
Petey tried to control the conversation with talking points--he couldn't.
Schooled.

No sorry. Talking points or not he did still make points. Points that could have been deconstructed and debated. Instead we got some guy calling him an idiot, which true as it may be is probably something any of us could do on our worst days. So no, he wasn't schooled. He is an idiot though and I would like him to get properly destroyed by a real argument, and not just this schoolyard shit.

Oh wait. I suppose in that sense he was "schooled". GODDAMN I'M WITTY.

>> ^Jinx:

I dont think he got schooled at all. Well, unless you think ad homs are cool.


He talked, and acted, like a fool--he got called a fool.

Petey tried to control the conversation with talking points--he couldn't.

Schooled.

But I already did...

>> ^blankfist:

Wanted to sift this gem:

Trim from Petey Boy on Vimeo.

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

Ha. That's funny, so did I. There is a problem with our embed validator. @lucky760 is looking into it.
>> ^blankfist:

Wanted to sift this gem:

Trim from Petey Boy on Vimeo.

Wanted to sift this gem:

Trim from Petey Boy on Vimeo.

Wow. Where'd all that anger come from? Which posts are you referring to exactly so I could reply more thoroughly? Maybe PM me with the details?

First off, major LOL, I'm an atheist, so thanks for assuming I'm Christian but I ain't. I believe Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and those like them are doing atheists everywhere a disservice with their absolutist language (i.e. all religious people are crazy, stupid, etc., all religions are evil, etc., and so on and so forth). This makes atheists everywhere look like some kind of reverse hate-mongers. It is exactly the kind of language of the fundamentalist opponents they profess to hate. Think about radical Islam--we're all Western devils because we don't subscribe to Sharia law, right?

The link I posted that compared Hitchens to Malcom X is spot on. Malcom X got a lot of media attention for his radical views, but in the end what did he accomplish? We don't celebrate Malcom X Day, you'll notice. Martin Luther King's Jr.'s message of cooperation and mutual understanding is what moved people's hearts on both sides of the divide and got us moving forward as a country, not Malcom X's divisiveness.

I absolutely agree there is a serious problem in the world in that some people try to use their religion to push their own worldly agendas (whether it be a political grab for power or what-not). Confronting and dealing with those people is going to require cooperation and dialogue between both the religious and non-religious people, between theists and atheists, between gnostics and agnostics. The failure of incredibly intelligent men like Hitchens to see this and their insistence on furthering the divisiveness on this issue is a great tragedy in my opinion. They don't see the forest through the trees. You want to prevent religion from dominating the political and cultural scene? So do a lot of religious people (the vast majority in most Western states). And their numbers VASTLY outnumber the atheists. Insulting those people who are clearly your potential allies hardly seems like a good way to go about getting them to see your point of view. When was the last time someone called you an idiot and you just sat there calmly and said, "You know what, you're right! I AM an idiot!"

On a side note, I included the clip from Hitchens' brother because he points out the fact that Hitchens has built himself a tower, secluded himself inside of it, and is simply hurling missiles at anything that moves outside without bothering to try to engage in real dialogue. I think the clip in this vid from the Glenn Beck show is the most telling of this, where Beck is trying to tell him that he doesn't consider Hitchens an enemy and Hitchens is actively trying to make Beck an enemy. He's not interested in real dialogue (to be fair to Hitchens, neither are many of his debate opponents). He's interested in making smart-alec comments and getting good sound bites--which is fine for an entertainer but doesn't get my respect for him as a thinker.

Hope that answers your question. I'm not going to respond to your other comments because, if you read my post again, you'd see clearly I was not at all making an attempt to defend any particular religion or religious activity.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

"I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against."
Examples, please. Put up or shut up. I am really getting sick and tired of you leaving your ineffable statements on video's regarding atheism without even the pretension of backing them up. How in the hell are you to persuade anyone by being so vague? Please show how Dawkins et al. are just as fundamentalist as those they deride. Show us this great evidence to the contrary. Those links you provided don't really help your argument at all. Where's the evidence that Christianity or ANY religion is true or that there is any GOOD reason for believing in something for which there is no evidence? Peter Hitchens lamenting the fact that everyone isn't a Christian or being afraid of God's wrath because he looked at a painting is NOT sufficient. Neither are his arguments that you must have an extensive knowledge of theology to make an assessment about the REAL WORLD claims that religion so carelessly expects everyone to accept by default. You're basically taking his word for it because hey, he's Christopher Hitchen's brother, he can't possibly be full of it! Which is a pretty weird inversion of argument from authority, the only reason it is authoritative at all is because he is related to the dude you think is so NOT authoritative, because I'm not seeing any coherent arguments from ole Petey.
Neither is the second link was which was just a bunch of waffling nonsense that was misleading and all over the place and inherently WRONG on the differences Chris has gone to great lengths to make between attacking religion and those who vary in their level of involvement in which they practice/contribute to it as an institution in his books. To compare him to a young white-hating Malcom-X is sheer hyperbole and a cheap caricature. It was so full of "gotcha!" moments that could only be called so because the author either didn't understand what he was reading or just flat out didn't read them (maybe he read the SparkNotes versions?); the article is based on a limited, superficial understanding of the New Atheist's position.
My question to you is: Why are you lying for Jebus? Is it intentional or can you just not help yourself?

"I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against."

Examples, please. Put up or shut up. I am really getting sick and tired of you leaving your ineffable statements on video's regarding atheism without even the pretension of backing them up. How in the hell are you to persuade anyone by being so vague? Please show how Dawkins et al. are just as fundamentalist as those they deride. Show us this great evidence to the contrary. Those links you provided don't really help your argument at all. Where's the evidence that Christianity or ANY religion is true or that there is any GOOD reason for believing in something for which there is no evidence? Peter Hitchens lamenting the fact that everyone isn't a Christian or being afraid of God's wrath because he looked at a painting is NOT sufficient. Neither are his arguments that you must have an extensive knowledge of theology to make an assessment about the REAL WORLD claims that religion so carelessly expects everyone to accept by default. You're basically taking his word for it because hey, he's Christopher Hitchen's brother, he can't possibly be full of it! Which is a pretty weird inversion of argument from authority, the only reason it is authoritative at all is because he is related to the dude you think is so NOT authoritative, because I'm not seeing any coherent arguments from ole Petey.

Neither is the second link was which was just a bunch of waffling nonsense that was misleading and all over the place and inherently WRONG on the differences Chris has gone to great lengths to make between attacking religion and those who vary in their level of involvement in which they practice/contribute to it as an institution in his books. To compare him to a young white-hating Malcom-X is sheer hyperbole and a cheap caricature. It was so full of "gotcha!" moments that could only be called so because the author either didn't understand what he was reading or just flat out didn't read them (maybe he read the SparkNotes versions?); the article is based on a limited, superficial understanding of the New Atheist's position.

My question to you is: Why are you lying for Jebus? Is it intentional or can you just not help yourself?

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by gwiz665.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Petey-Greene-How-to-eat-Watermelon-Subbed

Yeah, take your pick: this one or this one.

>> ^gwiz665:

>> ^marinara:
i tried posting this its sitting in my pqueue

The pq is my bane! I'll let this draw some votes and then dupeof... it's hilarious.

good man. second I seen that thumbnail pic i knew it had already been posted. I know because I loved it. whoooo weiiiiiiiii thats gewd wata melon.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
>> ^marinara:

i tried posting this its sitting in my pqueue


The pq is my bane! I'll let this draw some votes and then dupeof... it's hilarious.