A real man would do this without a spacesuit.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video How to eat a banana like a real man. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Considering this "adult" s activly encouraging his kid to harass a poor crippled little girl,I think Child Services should consider taking his kid AWAY. Let the Law interfere with his life becase he is an Unfit Parent!

This is how a Real Man should treat an unfortunate child with such problems...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/best-halloween-costume-wheelchair-special-needs-buster-ice-cream-truck_n_1928714.html

I think some of you weren't brought up properly. This doesn't seem gross at all. Have you ever made meatballs at home? Or bread? Or meatloaf? I know it may not be common but try grinding your own beef at home (so you can choose the exact cut and quality) and it will look similar to this video

If you want to be a real man(woman) try raising your own chickens that are both for eggs and for slaughter. Don't assume I am a monster for killing them. I don't like to see animals suffer so I made sure the blade was clean and sharp. I made sure it was quick and painless. After removing the feathers and innards some of the meat went to be fried on the bone while the rest was ground.

I stick by my opinion that those of you who are grossed out by this have been sheltered, too far removed from food to understand where it comes from.

Oh and read this http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-30/asia/world_asia_philippines-pagpag-slums_1_trash-bags-pagpag-chicken?_s=PM:ASIA and get back to me

since when does a kidney stone give rise to acting like an immature asshole?

I don't care if it was the size of a grapefruit.
A real man wouldn't talk to a woman that way... or anyone for that matter.

What a douche.

>> ^therealblankman:

It might sound odd, but I'm very passionate about shaving. I have tried everything that comes on the market, Fusion, Mach3 or whatever and they all suck donkey balls next to my single blade, double edge safety-razor, badger brush and good shaving soap. For those men who shave, especially black guys, wet-shaving simply can not be beat.
I've worn out 2 bristle brushes in 25 years of shaving. When the last needed to be replaced I treated myself to a really nice Badger hair brush- it was about $50, and is totally worth it. I'm allowed to have nice things. A five dollar bristle brush works just as well, but doesn't feel nearly as nice, nor does it make as nice a lather.
For soap Proraso Ultra-Sensitive is my current favorite. It's pretty inexpensive- a ten dollar tub lasts almost a year, and it is nicely moisturizing. Doesn't have a pretty scent, but that's okay. Not that it doesn't smell nice- it does, just not all pretty-like. I also use the standard Proraso green- it's loaded with Menthol and Eucalyptus so is really cooling on the skin- in the summer on a hot day if you use that stuff and cool water it feels like you're shaving with ice. There are some expensive luxury soaps and creams available and they are absolutely fantastic- An ex once gave me a cake of Geo F. Trumpers Limes, and I cherished that stuff for years- used it only on special occasions. You can also buy the old-standard "Mug" brand shaving soap for about one or two dollars at most drug stores- it works pretty good as well but is a little drying to the face- I keep a bar around and take it camping and backpacking.
The handle I use is a classic vintage "Improved" Gillette 3-piece screw-together safety razor dating from the 1930s, which makes it nearly 80 years old! How's that for economical? New handles are also available at specialty stores and online. The Merkur brand handles are particularly nice- I have one of those even though I still prefer the vintage Gillette. The old Gillette is also gold plated which does nothing to make the shave better but it looks cool.
As for blades, about three or four years ago I bought 400 Derby brand safety blades on Ebay for $50! I use fewer than 2 blades/week which means I've got a lot left, more than a hundred. I've also given away many packages to friends who wanted to try wet-shaving and none of them have gone back to their old (new?) ways.
Two passes gives me a clean and super-close shave, no nicks, no ingrown hairs, no burning, no bumps. Skin feels fantastic and I do very well with the ladies. Speaking of the ladies, most every woman I've been with has been very curious about the whole thing- the morning ritual with the brush, the special soaps etc. Some have even asked if they could try- which can lead to a lot of fun! Think that'll ever come about with your cheap spray-can of nasty foam or gel?
Men-do yourself a favour and throw away those over-priced mediocre multi-blade set-ups and chemical-laden skin-drying cans of shitty foam and shave like a real man. This is one thing your grandfather had right.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/688684
5/ns/today-today_weekend_edition/t/how-get-perfect-shave/#.T1aPd_Wt2nA


This was the post of the month. I saw a giant flag raising up behind you Patton style as you belted out this reference quality post.

The man makes a convincing argument!>> ^therealblankman:

It might sound odd, but I'm very passionate about shaving. I have tried everything that comes on the market, Fusion, Mach3 or whatever and they all suck donkey balls next to my single blade, double edge safety-razor, badger brush and good shaving soap. For those men who shave, especially black guys, wet-shaving simply can not be beat.
I've worn out 2 bristle brushes in 25 years of shaving. When the last needed to be replaced I treated myself to a really nice Badger hair brush- it was about $50, and is totally worth it. I'm allowed to have nice things. A five dollar bristle brush works just as well, but doesn't feel nearly as nice, nor does it make as nice a lather.
For soap Proraso Ultra-Sensitive is my current favorite. It's pretty inexpensive- a ten dollar tub lasts almost a year, and it is nicely moisturizing. Doesn't have a pretty scent, but that's okay. Not that it doesn't smell nice- it does, just not all pretty-like. I also use the standard Proraso green- it's loaded with Menthol and Eucalyptus so is really cooling on the skin- in the summer on a hot day if you use that stuff and cool water it feels like you're shaving with ice. There are some expensive luxury soaps and creams available and they are absolutely fantastic- An ex once gave me a cake of Geo F. Trumpers Limes, and I cherished that stuff for years- used it only on special occasions. You can also buy the old-standard "Mug" brand shaving soap for about one or two dollars at most drug stores- it works pretty good as well but is a little drying to the face- I keep a bar around and take it camping and backpacking.
The handle I use is a classic vintage "Improved" Gillette 3-piece screw-together safety razor dating from the 1930s, which makes it nearly 80 years old! How's that for economical? New handles are also available at specialty stores and online. The Merkur brand handles are particularly nice- I have one of those even though I still prefer the vintage Gillette. The old Gillette is also gold plated which does nothing to make the shave better but it looks cool.
As for blades, about three or four years ago I bought 400 Derby brand safety blades on Ebay for $50! I use fewer than 2 blades/week which means I've got a lot left, more than a hundred. I've also given away many packages to friends who wanted to try wet-shaving and none of them have gone back to their old (new?) ways.
Two passes gives me a clean and super-close shave, no nicks, no ingrown hairs, no burning, no bumps. Skin feels fantastic and I do very well with the ladies. Speaking of the ladies, most every woman I've been with has been very curious about the whole thing- the morning ritual with the brush, the special soaps etc. Some have even asked if they could try- which can lead to a lot of fun! Think that'll ever come about with your cheap spray-can of nasty foam or gel?
Men-do yourself a favour and throw away those over-priced mediocre multi-blade set-ups and chemical-laden skin-drying cans of shitty foam and shave like a real man. This is one thing your grandfather had right.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/688684
5/ns/today-today_weekend_edition/t/how-get-perfect-shave/#.T1aPd_Wt2nA

It might sound odd, but I'm very passionate about shaving. I have tried everything that comes on the market, Fusion, Mach3 or whatever and they all suck donkey balls next to my single blade, double edge safety-razor, badger brush and good shaving soap. For those men who shave, especially black guys, wet-shaving simply can not be beat.

I've worn out 2 bristle brushes in 25 years of shaving. When the last needed to be replaced I treated myself to a really nice Badger hair brush- it was about $50, and is totally worth it. I'm allowed to have nice things. A five dollar bristle brush works just as well, but doesn't feel nearly as nice, nor does it make as nice a lather.

For soap Proraso Ultra-Sensitive is my current favorite. It's pretty inexpensive- a ten dollar tub lasts almost a year, and it is nicely moisturizing. Doesn't have a pretty scent, but that's okay. Not that it doesn't smell nice- it does, just not all pretty-like. I also use the standard Proraso green- it's loaded with Menthol and Eucalyptus so is really cooling on the skin- in the summer on a hot day if you use that stuff and cool water it feels like you're shaving with ice. There are some expensive luxury soaps and creams available and they are absolutely fantastic- An ex once gave me a cake of Geo F. Trumpers Limes, and I cherished that stuff for years- used it only on special occasions. You can also buy the old-standard "Mug" brand shaving soap for about one or two dollars at most drug stores- it works pretty good as well but is a little drying to the face- I keep a bar around and take it camping and backpacking.

The handle I use is a classic vintage "Improved" Gillette 3-piece screw-together safety razor dating from the 1930s, which makes it nearly 80 years old! How's that for economical? New handles are also available at specialty stores and online. The Merkur brand handles are particularly nice- I have one of those even though I still prefer the vintage Gillette. The old Gillette is also gold plated which does nothing to make the shave better but it looks cool.

As for blades, about three or four years ago I bought 400 Derby brand safety blades on Ebay for $50! I use fewer than 2 blades/week which means I've got a lot left, more than a hundred. I've also given away many packages to friends who wanted to try wet-shaving and none of them have gone back to their old (new?) ways.

Two passes gives me a clean and super-close shave, no nicks, no ingrown hairs, no burning, no bumps. Skin feels fantastic and I do very well with the ladies. Speaking of the ladies, most every woman I've been with has been very curious about the whole thing- the morning ritual with the brush, the special soaps etc. Some have even asked if they could try- which can lead to a lot of fun! Think that'll ever come about with your cheap spray-can of nasty foam or gel?

Men-do yourself a favour and throw away those over-priced mediocre multi-blade set-ups and chemical-laden skin-drying cans of shitty foam and shave like a real man. This is one thing your grandfather had right.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/6886845/ns/today-today_weekend_edition/t/how-get-perfect-shave/#.T1aPd_Wt2nA

Also, the monster you see in the video is a Tokoloshe - look him on Wikipedia.

>> ^EndAll:

To give some of the stuff in the video a bit more context, there's this further explanation from Xeni Jardin in the comments on BoingBoing:
So, the story behind this video and song (or part of the story -- there's so much going on!) is that this kid was being coerced into a form of ritual circumcision by his community. It's culturally mandatory within his ethnic group, so much so that if you are a young man and you do not participate, you are completely ostracized. It's hardcore.
The thinking, and this is communicated pretty bluntly to the young men, is that if you don't participate, you're gay. You're effeminate. You're not a real man. You never mature from being a boy to being a man.
The kid is hetero. And he struggled with all of this in real life: with what it meant for his personal and cultural identity. And he came to a point where he was like, you know what? Fuck you all. The fact that I won't consent to having my penis sliced with an unsterilized knife, out in the bush, and risk infection or worse-- that doesn't mean "I'm gay," as you say. If that's what being a man is, fuck it, I don't want to be a man. I'll be an "evil boy for life." But, yeah, I am a real man, even if I don't participate in this tradition which I now reject, at the risk of being totally ostracized from my community.
You might have chosen different lyrics, but dude, it's not our story or our culture or our world experience at all.
It's his.

assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.

The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.

Yes, that is what I wanted evidence for, because you seemed to have stated it as if it were conclusively proven. I would ask you how you can justify it without a single citation? We have very early manuscript so we know what the early church was working with. When and how exactly do you think this retconning took place?

I will ask for evidence that the NT account of Satan contradicts the OT.

Now, to say the gospels are written by unknowns is simply not plausible. First, for this to be possible, you would have to argue that the church universally agreed on their authorship without any dissension. This strains credulity..entire denominations have been formed over far less important points. For there not to be even be a whiff of controversy in the early church over their authorship proves this theory to be bunk. You also have the fact that they were written in the memory of living witnesses, including the disciples. This would be a check on their authenticity.

I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.

Well, if Jesus was a real person it really puts a damper on your theory. The details of His life were widely known about, and there were obviously quite a few witnesses as to who He really was. Do you really think its plausible that so many devout jews in the 1st century would completely estrange themselves from their culture and heritage and willingly martyr themselves over a clever fable? It seems like they also would need some solid evidence to do something like that, and a story about Jesus that many people knew to be false wouldn't hardly qualify.

And there is solid evidence. Have you considered any of the evidence mentioned here?:


But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.

You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

You're talking about a very narrow definition of omniscience which is logically contradictory. For instance, under this strict definition of omniscience God would have to know every thought He would ever have and be locked into that thought process for eternity. This would make God no better than a robot. But the nature of God by definition is transcendent of this. If God knew every thought He would ever have, there is no reason He couldn't throw them all away and think something else. Does He necessarily have to anticipate everything He would ever think to still be omniscient? No, because it is to know everything that can be known, and I don't think even God can anticipate all of His thoughts, although we can always count on them being consistant with His nature.

Therefore, although God can surely anticipate the actions of limited beings, His own dynamic reactions to His creation can give His creatures a measure of freedom from this predeterminatism and can themselves have dynamic choices. There is no sense in the bible that God is just "going through the motions". He reacts dynamically according to what His creatures do. He gives choices..for instance, He made the prediction that the 4th generation of Israelites would enter into the land He had prepared for them, but it actually turned out to be the 5th generation due to disobedience. So for these reasons I don't necessarily think God is running a kangaroo court. I think He tests our hearts, and gives us genuine choices with genuine consequences.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:
I assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.
The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.
I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.
But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.
You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:

I assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.

The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.

I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.

But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.

You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

That's some evil fucking shit. The beating with the belt is bad enough, but the emotional abuse by both parents is just shocking. The pure anger and hatred that father displays towards his own daughter for putting a game on her computer is a severe overreaction.

I guarantee you that poor girl is going to grow up with mental scares and issues from living under that arsehole's threats and terror.

Beating a child... that's the sign of a real man? Fucking pathetic.

Is that you, quantum mushroom???

>> ^budzos:

You're right he should have just taken the slap. Like a real man. What kind of man takes revenge on women who are advancing towards him and could possibly do any one of a million things to harm him in the real world and not some fantasy boy scout world where all women are harmless?
Don't you think it's a bit sexist to assume no woman can harm a man? No two women? The guy is skinny. These are two angry fat bitches coming at him.
Now everyone go ahead and ignore my logic and attack me for using one of your magic win-by-default words.

You're right he should have just taken the slap. Like a real man. What kind of man takes revenge on women who are advancing towards him and could possibly do any one of a million things to harm him in the real world and not some fantasy boy scout world where all women are harmless?

Don't you think it's a bit sexist to assume no woman can harm a man? No two women? The guy is skinny. These are two angry fat bitches coming at him.

Now everyone go ahead and ignore my logic and attack me for using one of your magic win-by-default words.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Louis, CK, Bill, Maher, Louie, single, kids, sex, lucky, testosterone, real man' to 'Louis CK, Bill Maher, Louie, single, kids, sex, lucky, testosterone, real man' - edited by xxovercastxx