>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^dag:
Oh yes! I would love to see some classy, clever spy stuff like this. I bet MI6 has the whole place bugged though.>> ^Deano:
I'm thinking of the end of The Thomas Crown Affair with Pierce Brosnan. Have a load of Assange lookalikes turn up and swarm the area, make several hoax "omg I saw a terrorist" calls and in the confusion Assange walks out disguised as a black guy (I saw that in Silver Streak with Gene Wilder).


That's my thought also.
With bugs everywhere, satellites, and CCTV cameras on every corner (to keep citizens "safe"). There is little chance an old style clock and dagger escape would work.


Some of the ideas aren't bad though...the thing is if they get tons of information you can use it against them until they don't trust the information they're getting. Also if push came to shove they would lock down the airport until they got a handle on the situation. The best thing they could do is distract like they're going to the airport and go to a small airport to charter a small plane to another nation who wouldn't turn him over, or at least to Europe where he could more easily disappear. Or maybe even use a boat to get to Europe. Just simply cover of darkness changing your hair sort of stuff could work and with communication and GPS these days he could be picked up and moved really efficiently.

I really wish I was a part of the group trying to get him out though, that would be soo much fun.

>> ^dag:

Oh yes! I would love to see some classy, clever spy stuff like this. I bet MI6 has the whole place bugged though.>> ^Deano:
I'm thinking of the end of The Thomas Crown Affair with Pierce Brosnan. Have a load of Assange lookalikes turn up and swarm the area, make several hoax "omg I saw a terrorist" calls and in the confusion Assange walks out disguised as a black guy (I saw that in Silver Streak with Gene Wilder).



That's my thought also.
With bugs everywhere, satellites, and CCTV cameras on every corner (to keep citizens "safe"). There is little chance an old style clock and dagger escape would work.

Another problem might be that being disguised as a black person doesn't reduce your chances of arrest...

>> ^dag:

Oh yes! I would love to see some classy, clever spy stuff like this. I bet MI6 has the whole place bugged though.>> ^Deano:
I'm thinking of the end of The Thomas Crown Affair with Pierce Brosnan. Have a load of Assange lookalikes turn up and swarm the area, make several hoax "omg I saw a terrorist" calls and in the confusion Assange walks out disguised as a black guy (I saw that in Silver Streak with Gene Wilder).

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

Oh yes! I would love to see some classy, clever spy stuff like this. I bet MI6 has the whole place bugged though.>> ^Deano:

I'm thinking of the end of The Thomas Crown Affair with Pierce Brosnan. Have a load of Assange lookalikes turn up and swarm the area, make several hoax "omg I saw a terrorist" calls and in the confusion Assange walks out disguised as a black guy (I saw that in Silver Streak with Gene Wilder).

I'm thinking of the end of The Thomas Crown Affair with Pierce Brosnan. Have a load of Assange lookalikes turn up and swarm the area, make several hoax "omg I saw a terrorist" calls and in the confusion Assange walks out disguised as a black guy (I saw that in Silver Streak with Gene Wilder).

>> ^garmachi:

Avid backpacker here. While I like the idea and support the cause, I probably won't get one for two reasons. First, my routine includes zero electronics while out in the wilderness. I do bring my phone, for emergencies, but I leave it powered off. Usually I'm someplace with no signal anyway. Second, it costs four times what I paid for my pocket rocket five years ago.


It's also 33 oz. Kinda heavy, considering you don't have to carry fuel.

Avid backpacker here. While I like the idea and support the cause, I probably won't get one for two reasons. First, my routine includes zero electronics while out in the wilderness. I do bring my phone, for emergencies, but I leave it powered off. Usually I'm someplace with no signal anyway. Second, it costs four times what I paid for my pocket rocket five years ago.

I think this has a lot to do with zeitgeist as well. The market for degrading porn is there, so it gets produced. There are different ways to quell it, like outlawing, or affecting the market in some way. Essentially, we would want to make people want the "good stuff" and not want the "bad stuff", but this is a problem with all sorts of things.

Some places, like denmark, have a "fat tax", to make people eat more healthy. You can also subsidize healthy food/porn from a government perspective. Alternatively, you need someone high in the industry that says "fuck this, we're only making good things now" like a steve jobs of porn. Heh.

When peoples' tastes change, the market changes with it. It's a shame that we're being driven towards wilder and wilder stuff, but I'm not sure what it takes to push back.
>> ^spoco2:

@gwiz665
I agree that the 'control group' isn't really one, as it is, as you said, severely skewed, it's just the best he had to work with.
I haven't looked at the studies at all, but you would think they could do ones that looked at frequency of porn use vs affects. They said they couldn't find anyone who didn't use it, but there sure as hell will be big differences between the amount people do.
And surely they could have a trial where they prescribe the amount of porn watched, and types for a period of time.
All of these things can be done even without a 'clean' control group.
So yeah, it seems like there isn't 'good' data on this.
But I certainly dislike the way that porn is so mainstream, and so anti female now. If you look hard enough you can find pockets of porn where everyone in it is respected and you see her feelings and arousal being addressed as well as his, but it's rare. There's far more 'Bangbus' and 'drunk coeds' shit.
I'd love to know a way to swing porn back to the respectful side of the spectrum, so that when people did just random porn searches, more often than not they saw real looking people having loving sex.... but I have no idea how that could ever be done.

>> ^VoodooV:

gee, shiny resorts to harassment? color me shocked!
I'm sorry, but ill say it again, people like shiny need to be kicked out of here. It has nothing to do with conservatism or religion, these people simply don't contribute to civil discourse. I know plenty of conservative/religious people who are capable of engaging in civil debate and discourse, Shiny or QM, and others aren't among these people
They drop their talking points and move on to the next sift. That's not debate, that's not discourse. And you certainly can't have rational discussions with someone who no matter what, thinks you need to be saved and doesn't view you as an equal human being and him and his god are always correct and you're always wrong. It's not conducive to rational discussion and quite frankly, it's simply not healthy, period.
And yes, it is trolling.
Remember that even though they seem to be an endangered species, there are actual rational right wingers out there. You may disagree with them, but they can actually debate civilly without regurgitating Fox News or Theistic propaganda.


This is such an old response and thread, but I thought I'd say it anyway as I really want it said in here.

I've met, actually, a great many people that are very set in their theistic mindset, but like you said they also don't think I'm going to burn in a pit of fire come the end of time; in fact quite a few of them would be morally outraged if such a thing occurred--as they literally know, like me, that the difference between believing in God and not, is merely a thought away (or you could say, one neuron connection/pathway away).

There are a few that believe in fire and brimstone type things, but they only--typically--reserve it for the greatest of crimes (like an Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot). Even fewer still that believe that there is a harsh judgment remaining for a lot of people, but they tend to believe that there is a way to "return" or to repent there--in the "lake of fire" and come back a new person.

BUT, the ones that think there IS a hell, absolute and horrifying in all it's glory, these are ALSO the very same people that cannot have a rational discussion with you. It's very strange. It's as though their ability to actively decide whether actions in play are moral or not are by definition an unanswerable question until they have been told by someone ELSE what that answer is: either the Bible, other religious members, or talk show hosts, and you get my picture. THESE are the dangerous people.

It reminds me of the story in the Old Testament, in Numbers 15:32-36 (for those that wish to read it). Now I know many *newer* religions, get around this stuff by saying they use the New Testament (it has it's fun stuff too, but for now, let's just do this one) due to Christ's Salvation and his, yada yada yada yada yada--I heard this for a long time myself as a Mormon and in some Catholic services I went to.

This guy collects what is essentially firewood on the Sabbath (this was back in the day when not having a fire active in your house/hut/tent/whatever at night could literally mean death--in case you've never been out camping/hiking, fires are VERY important and are a DAMNED LUXURY with our matches, steel wool, sleeping bags made to hold in heat, and other items that make a night in the wilderness go by--gently and one could say comfortably fun).

Instead of just collecting this firewood, making a meal and going to bed, this guy gets caught for working on the Sabbath and is taken to Moses and Aaron. So we all know what that little commandment this is, the one EVERYONE disobeys now (It goes by either of these two definitions and there are more versions--trust me: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. -OR- Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.). So God buzzes Moses on the iGodphone™ and tells Moses the bad news, or well the good news and the bad news. The bad news is that "unnamed villager" will be taken outside the encampment, with what sounds like most of the people and then stoned to death. The good news, is they get to stone someone (sorry, but back then and with the regularity of which stoning happened I really think people enjoyed it when these edicts came on down...)!

SO, I've seen this tale said many a time and I CANNOT believe the amount of heads I see move up and down while this is repeated. They LITERALLY agree with cold-blooded murder in the first-degree, for GATHERING FIREWOOD!!! In the damned ages BEFORE the Dark Ages-life SUCKED! You NEEDED FIRE!!! It wasn't a question of maybe I'll skip it tonight it was a matter of when do I start it up--every night! So you can see why people like this can be dangerous as someone from on high that they think is their leader gives them what essentially is a crime, they don't think to long about it--they act, and carry out whatever truly horrifying act it was.

This has been abused by many Cult leaders, like the "Alien Comet riders" or also known as Heaven's Gate in California or something even MORE horrifying like Jonestown (something that was horrific--there are some GREAT documentaries on this to watch,; I suggest looking for them) or something semi-recent like (straight from wiki), "The 778 deaths of members of the Ugandan group Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, on March 17, 2000, is considered to be a mass murder and suicide orchestrated by leaders of the group.", so you can see while large religions don't do these WILD events they DO slowly in fact do smaller and incrementally increase their crimes.

You might ask what crimes, but it is literally crimes that we can point to that are AGAINST the VERY FABRIC of your own teachings. Use the Golden Rule in your life and get rid of the authority driven craziness, it will only lead you to sadness, if you're a zealot--fight it within yourself.
--------

So, anyway, what I'm saying is that I very much agree that there ARE many people that are theistic believers (not just Christan ones mind you) that are GREAT to talk to and many times you don't even have to argue with them you can have laid back conversations with them--it's amazing who you run into.

BUT, for the people I mentioned they are nearly lost causes. I don't know exactly what their problem is but it does have something to do with the fact that they MUST be told a "truth" by a "high-ranking-official" for them to change a stance. They are TRUE believers, ZEALOTS to their cause and dangerous.

A little bit the same as you said @VoodooV, but I thought I'd add a few more nails into that coffin.

>> ^PalmliX:

Hi Shinyblurry,
I suppose everyone picks on you because you're one of few Christians on the sift who actually sticks around and defends his position. Are there any others? Not many stay I imagine...
Being such a representative of the faith I want to ask you an honest question that isn't designed to be sarcastic or make you look bad in any way but is just a simple question that I have wondered about for a long time and I'm curious to what your answer is because you seem to give fairly thorough answers.
Growing up I lived with a single mom who basically held the same view I held now, she didn't know if there was a God or not but she also encouraged me to experiment with any religious views that I felt like. I remember going to various church services on many different occasions, we had Jewish friends and took part in their ceremonies/festivities, same with Christian friends, even Muslim etc.. All this time my Mom was remarkable in the fact she neither dismissed or accepted any of these views, she/we simply took part with an open mind didn't try to impose any judgments. Did we give all religions equal time? No not necessarily but I don't think it would of been possible to live a more open and genuinely inquisitive childhood. My mother didn't stand in my way of finding a fulfilling religious path in life nor a none religious one.
Anyway, don't want to sidetrack this question too much, just wanted to give you some background as to where I'm coming from.
My question is this:
From this open point of view, I found that as a child, and later in life, all I saw around me were people telling me that their religion was the right one. They were all perfectly sincere and genuine in their beliefs, and they all seemed perfectly happy enough, but I personally found it odd that no God ever made an attempt to connect with me personally. From my point of view, everyone was genuine in their beliefs, but their beliefs were all different, so how was I supposed to know which one to choose? I attempted to pray to god when I was child because I was genuinely curious and wanted to know what I was missing, but I never received any indication that something was listening to me. Of course we could argue that I went about it in the wrong way, as I most likely did, but as a child (and as a grown up now) who grew up in a household where I was free to follow any path that I liked, how I was supposed to know that your God, i.e. the Christian God with Jesus in the mix was the right one to follow.
You mentioned in a previous comment that "God gives everyone enough information and opportunities to make the right choices" but personally all the information I see are 2 books and a whole bunch of HUMANS telling me that they are true. But the problem for me personally is that there are many many books with many many human supporters backing them up and from my point of view they are essentially all equal, i.e. I have never seen any indications that one group has more truth behind it than any other. Why does God then, rely on these imperfect human agents in order to spread the truth about it's existence, why didn't God attempt to make a personal connection with me?
Again please don't take this as any kind of personal attack, I'm generally interested in the answer to this question and I'd like to think that I have an open mind. In order to potentially make this question simpler to answer, here's an analogy that I think works well... say a human child was lost to his parents in the woods and he/she somehow managed to survive in the wilderness (not very likely I realize). This child would have no concept of human language or culture, would essentially be a wild animal but would still, for all intents and purposes, be human. Would this person ever come to find God/Jesus? If so how, with no bible or other people to tell him/her about it. Would God come to this person personally and inform them of everything they need to know? If so, why didn't God come to me to help me make a decision?
Cheers,
- Adam


It's like if you have a teddy bear. You believe that it's real and helps/comforts you in life. Other people have different teddy bears and you laugh at them because they believe their teddy bears are real and you know they aren't. Or you have people with the same teddy bear you have, but they treat it in ways you feel is wrong and not what your teddy bear would like, using it as a pillow maybe.

Then someone comes along without any teddy bear at all and tells you that you don't need one.

Suddenly the people with other teddy bears or teddy bear ways don't seem so bad. At least they have a teddy bear. You would even gang up with the false teddy bear people to go against this guy.

The non-believer is the real threat, ask yourself why.

Hi Shinyblurry,

I suppose everyone picks on you because you're one of few Christians on the sift who actually sticks around and defends his position. Are there any others? Not many stay I imagine...

Being such a representative of the faith I want to ask you an honest question that isn't designed to be sarcastic or make you look bad in any way but is just a simple question that I have wondered about for a long time and I'm curious to what your answer is because you seem to give fairly thorough answers.

Growing up I lived with a single mom who basically held the same view I held now, she didn't know if there was a God or not but she also encouraged me to experiment with any religious views that I felt like. I remember going to various church services on many different occasions, we had Jewish friends and took part in their ceremonies/festivities, same with Christian friends, even Muslim etc.. All this time my Mom was remarkable in the fact she neither dismissed or accepted any of these views, she/we simply took part with an open mind didn't try to impose any judgments. Did we give all religions equal time? No not necessarily but I don't think it would of been possible to live a more open and genuinely inquisitive childhood. My mother didn't stand in my way of finding a fulfilling religious path in life nor a none religious one.

Anyway, don't want to sidetrack this question too much, just wanted to give you some background as to where I'm coming from.

My question is this:

From this open point of view, I found that as a child, and later in life, all I saw around me were people telling me that their religion was the right one. They were all perfectly sincere and genuine in their beliefs, and they all seemed perfectly happy enough, but I personally found it odd that no God ever made an attempt to connect with me personally. From my point of view, everyone was genuine in their beliefs, but their beliefs were all different, so how was I supposed to know which one to choose? I attempted to pray to god when I was child because I was genuinely curious and wanted to know what I was missing, but I never received any indication that something was listening to me. Of course we could argue that I went about it in the wrong way, as I most likely did, but as a child (and as a grown up now) who grew up in a household where I was free to follow any path that I liked, how I was supposed to know that your God, i.e. the Christian God with Jesus in the mix was the right one to follow.

You mentioned in a previous comment that "God gives everyone enough information and opportunities to make the right choices" but personally all the information I see are 2 books and a whole bunch of HUMANS telling me that they are true. But the problem for me personally is that there are many many books with many many human supporters backing them up and from my point of view they are essentially all equal, i.e. I have never seen any indications that one group has more truth behind it than any other. Why does God then, rely on these imperfect human agents in order to spread the truth about it's existence, why didn't God attempt to make a personal connection with me?

Again please don't take this as any kind of personal attack, I'm generally interested in the answer to this question and I'd like to think that I have an open mind. In order to potentially make this question simpler to answer, here's an analogy that I think works well... say a human child was lost to his parents in the woods and he/she somehow managed to survive in the wilderness (not very likely I realize). This child would have no concept of human language or culture, would essentially be a wild animal but would still, for all intents and purposes, be human. Would this person ever come to find God/Jesus? If so how, with no bible or other people to tell him/her about it. Would God come to this person personally and inform them of everything they need to know? If so, why didn't God come to me to help me make a decision?

Cheers,

- Adam

Just wanted you to know you aren't alone in not liking some of the "male" humor around here.

I don't think it is a good thing -- but I have gotten numb to it. It is a good coping mechanism. And especially when it becomes clear there is nothing you can do or say that will make a difference. So why bother.

And. I remember feeling pretty much a lone voice calling out into the wilderness, and how crappy that felt.

So. You aren't alone.


In reply to this comment by 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.

I would like to take a moment to fight the good fight. Let's get down to brass tacks: Idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Rick Mercer spends his leisure time devising ever more money-grubbing ways to commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge his vindictive wheelings and dealings. To use some computer terminology, his gang has an "installed base" of hundreds of disorganized renitent-types. The implication is that Rick thinks it would be a great idea to entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of the ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice of acrasial, gloomy finaglers. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed. Although I can no more change the past than see the future, it's safe to say that I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, villainous world run by lecherous, obstreperous dissemblers. It should come as no shock to anyone that if you can make any sense out Rick's lackluster mottos then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them

I always hated it when I was a kid because it could never compare to the book. In the end, it was that foam tractor thing that did it. WTF was that? That was no longways-going glass elevator. In fact, I still don't like it, even if Gene Wilder is brilliant.

And yeah, I cover my eyes when they go through the tunnel in the candy boat, so what?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Gene Wilder, Cinema, Willy Wonka, Contract' to 'Gene Wilder, Cinema, Willy Wonka, Contract, Wrong Sir, You Lose' - edited by calvados