This reminds me of another uncomfortable interview: https://youtu.be/bUhZmO6P0NU?si=hZ7GdaajxaAQc-H6&t=902

Gaddafi knew some English, but the reticence of the translator - - - told a different story than what M.G. was laying down.

Phenomenal. Really enjoyed that.

But um, excuse me...

after ALL that stuff about making it realistic, HOW IN THE WORLD did they let the guy lay down on his back with the sword's "blade" resting across his stomach???

That aside, well done!

Every time this guy lays down an assertion, he's presenting questionable supposition as fact. He's building all of his points from a shaky foundation of paranoia presented as reality.

There are definitely problems with the way that 24 hour news media is formatted and it is causing social issues. But the problem is a lot more complex than "a conspiracy of rich people controlling you". Any solution is going to require real objective, unbiased and clear-eyed analysis of how the news business works today. This video isn't that.

Aww.. he just wanted a place to lay down and relax. So he killed for it.

Depends on the type of bear and why it's advancing / whether it's attacking! Generally it's good to calmly make yourself known and look large, as you say. This one already seemed aware and curious, but not necessarily threatening, so provoking it probably wouldn't be a great idea. It's a myth that running or trying to move away will activate a chase, especially if the bear is in territory with food - moving away while watching the bear and grouping together to seem larger was the right thing to do. Should the bear actually attack: If the bear's black, fight back (and/or call its bluff charge). If it's brown, lay down (play dead for brown or grizzly bears).

Well, the video already mentioned the cost of getting traffic lights as well as laying down miles (or Kilometres) of electric cables, so this is a rural area (otherwise a city/town would've certainly found the money to do it)... installing traffic cams will need to lay those same cables.

They could do a roundabout maybe? UK & EU are fond of those...

I find this hard to believe.

I've seen a lot of videos of people catching on video a close-up lightning strike (like in their backyard) and there's always an enormous, deafening explosion sound when the lightning hits, and you also see it.

In this video there's just a flash in the sky and the two blokes seemingly just lay down with a bellyache.

Hey BSR, I appreciate your question.

It's hard to overstate the impact that Christ has had on my life. Since I was saved He has transformed me into a new person. Not a perfect person, mind you; I am a work in progress.

Before I knew that God existed, I was totally secular in my beliefs. I didn't believe in anything supernatural. When I found out that God was real, it was completely mind blowing because it meant that everything I knew about reality was in some way wrong or incomplete.

I didn't immediately become a Christian, however. I didn't know who God was, but I did know He was all powerful and personally loved me. Actually the last thing I wanted to be was a Christian.

However over the years I received revelation that showed me that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the bible is His book. It all kind of culminated one day when God showed me my spiritual beliefs were delusional and my choice was either to give my life to His Son or deliberately deceive myself. I didn't want to give my life to Jesus but I didn't want to believe a lie either. So I kind of begrudgingly asked the Lord to come into my life. He answered and did show up almost immediately.

I knew I was a sinner, no one had to convince me of that. I knew that if God was holy I needed forgiveness because that meant there would be a judgment. I knew that was the reason that Jesus was sent, to save us from that judgment.

As Christians, our goal is to grow closer to Christ. I am getting to know Him a little better in the last few years. Jesus has come to me not just as Lord but also as a friend. He has given me joy and peace which cannot be described and doesn't come from this world. If you had one second of His joy you would never be the same and never see this world the same way again. Everything you can gain in this world is dust and ashes in comparison.

Jesus Christ is God, but also an intimate friend, and He sincerely cares about our lives. He came to reconcile us to the Father and that is His heart for every person. Because He was human, He understands our weaknesses and doesn't condemn us for it. He knows we need help and has provided everything we need to live a godly life pleasing to God.

His revelation has taught me that there is hope which is real, substantial, and available every day of our life. He has taught me to love sacrificially and lay down my life for another. He has wiped every tear from my eyes and helps me with every problem and situation. He has shown me that He is all the bible says He is, and even more. I know He is faithful and eternally, He will always be there.

I thought the same thing, but it is partially by design, apparently. To lay down water to drench the area.

But yeah. Bye bye grass.

While I generally agree, I think the cop that violently tackled the guy from behind was a bit overzealous. Did the cops even tell the guy to stop what he was doing or lay down/surrender? I didn't hear anything (but perhaps they did). That tackle was painful though - look at how the cop trapped the man's arms so he couldn't even protect his face from the fall. Brutal. The cops could have used a bit more restraint or commonsense...but yes, I agree that the guy that ran up to the bag put himself in harm's way.

When you're talking about something that clearly skews the stats, like hyper religious people thinking divorce is totally a slap at God, that's not confirmation bias, it's statistics.

It's also evidence that it is a better way of life, but that is something you apparently refuse to consider. That is why I am calling confirmation bias.

Do you feel the same about those who imprison women, force their silence with abuse, and treat them like abused pets because their religion says that's proper? What if they're Christians?

The bible says that husbands should lay down their lives for their wives, like Christ loved the church and died for it.

What say you about those God has chosen to be non believers? According to you, God created them with no purpose besides eternal torture in hell, because according to you they have no alternative since God never revealed himself to them so heaven is barred to them. Pretty fucked up God imo. I prefer Mt (Mot, Mewt, etc). He's older than Yahweh and far more honest and stable.

It's not that God wouldn't reveal Himself to them; a lot of ex-christian atheists simply inherited the faith of their parents, and when they got turned loose in the world, they fell away because they didn't really know God. They need to have their own faith that is wholly theirs. No one can make you or by proxy give your life to Christ. That is a decision each individual person has to come to on their own.

Yes indeed! The full quote has a specific meaning: that women should stay silent in church as per the law. This was the law of the land at the time and is strange for Paul to say since he supposedly held the law (Mosaic Law) in disdain. His particular instructions were only intended for the people he was speaking to. He didn't forsee that some person would attempt, two millenium later, to apply those intructions to a foreign situation.

Very importantly, only recently in history have some versions of Christianity abandoned what is called Tradition and started taking the word of the bible as its own contextual source (sola scriptura). The Orthodox and Catholic churches have Tradition and it lays down a continual (2000 year old) framework for which to interpret the bible and other aspects of the religion.

I'm not a scholar in this area so I don't know a lot, perhaps someone else can chime in.

TLDR - the verse has been taken out of context.

@transmorpher
i would say we disagree but i cant even say that.
you didn't counter ANYTHING i said,you just accused me of being dishonest.

which has been pretty much your position this entire thread.i thought i was doing you a solid by laying down some history,which helps explain some facets of radical islam.

notice my wording:facets.

do you realize that i taught comparative religion and cultural religious history?
do you realize just how foolish you appear to me right now?

you want to counter my argument....by not countering my argument,and implying i am being dishonest.

ok sweetheart,
i think i see the problem here.
YOU are seeing the dynamic through a singular lens.

you want to ignore the historical implications and simply focus on islam itself?
ok,that's fine.
i find it stupid,short sighted and incredibly biased,but whatever..

yoooou have an agenda to get to don't ya?

ok.
then let us just strip the dynamic of ALL historical implications and focus solely on islam itself.
(which is why you mentioned Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Hitchens )
you clever clever boy...
i see what you did there../ruffles hair.
you are SO adorable when you are being myopic and lazy!

so what would you like to discuss?
how islam is in desperate need of a reformation?
or maybe how the original intent of islam from a spiritual perspective was hi-jacked by his cousins and turned into a political conquest machine,that subjugated ...

you know what?
why am i bothering?
you have revealed yourself to be a condescending,sanctimonious know-nothing.who read a couple of books and thinks he 'get's it".

no dude..you read sam harris.

look man,
i am not here defending islam,because as religions go,islam is kinda shit.
but to ignore how neoliberalism and american interventionism have amplified,and worsened and already crappy situation.

that's not even intellectually dishonest.
that is just plain lazy.

whats next?
you gonna do some 'thought experiments" and try to argue that at least america's "intentions" were nobel?

you WERE! weren't you!!

and this little revisionist nugget "Those countries have had problems long before any western intervention."

oooh really?
because,unlike YOU,i actually know the history of that region.
so if you want we can compare how some cities and countries were considered "progressive" and even "liberal",and even some (granted,only a few) that were considered "secular" *gasp*.

how about this,instead of me repeatedly taking you to the woodshed to give ya some of that "learnin",how about you just go look up the history of kabul,afghanistan.

that's it.just one city.

and then come back and tell me that neoliberalism,colonialism and good old fashioned empire building hasn't been a major force in the rise in fundamentalism and radicalization in the middle east.

it looks like you really ARE going to make go all the way back to the dark ages!

and dude..seriously..hitchens ROCKED,but sam harris?
no..juuust no.
i don't do apologists as a counter argument.

edit:i will say that i agree with this "There are actual muslims (such as Maajid Nawaz)that say islam has a problem(especially particular strands of it), and it needs reform. Embracing the muslims who want reform is the only way forward."

you mean that islam may need a reformation?
*gasps*/clasps hands to face.
didn't i fucking already SAY that?

ah well,foiled by my pedantic ways.

@newtboy
you misunderstood.

respectable investigative journalists gain that respect by being consistent with their reporting.

chris hedges is such a journalist.

but,by your metric,him being on RT negates that respect.now this is an assumption on my part,but i am using your words to come to that assumed conclusion.you have yet to agree or disagree with what chris hedges is saying,choosing instead to attack the medium in which he is saying it.this is your right,i just happen to disagree with you on this matter.

i refer back to one of my original comments,and a point i tried (and i guess failed?) to reiterate:discernment is the key.

so in a sense..yes..it is our responsibility to do our due diligence to vette the veracity of an investigative reporter.

those "reporters" who shill for either the democrats or republicans reveal themselves as the whores they are fairly quickly.

demagogues can almost be instantly identified due to their constant appeals to emotion.(keith olbermans new youtube channel from GQ "the resistance" comes to mind).

and reporters who are simply bad or lazy are quickly revealed as well.by other reporters.

let's take @bcglorf review of chomsky,and how chomsky is singular in his constant criticism of american foreign policy and asks the question "why can't he,just for once,speak on the positives that america has done in the world,or speculate on what could have happened had american not intervened in third world country A or B".(paraphrased)

now this is not an entirely unfair question,and in chomsky's books..he does address the very specifics that bcglorf would like to see chomsky address,but in lectures you are lucky to get a sentence in regards to such subjects.

but notice that while bcglorf would like to see chomsky speak in more broad terms,he never once questions the veracity of the details chomsky is laying down.

do you know why?
because chomsky does his homework,and backs up everything he says.

bcglorf respects chomsky for this,while simultaneously wishing he changed the channel once in awhile.

bcglorf utilized discernment to come to the conclusion that chomsky is a worthy,if infuriating,read/listen.

i do not mean to be speaking for Bc,and maybe i am missing the mark by a long shot using him as an example (if i did,please forgive Bc).

but my basic point is that we ALL discriminate and discern using our own subjective tools,our experiences and ultimately our understandings.

the problem here,and it is the underlying message on this thread,is confirmation bias.

we all know about this,and this election cycle REALLY brought this up to the forefront.

what i find interesting,and always makes me giggle,is how people will point to the "mainstream media" as an outlet for:propaganda,fake news,biased and slanted news ..but..it is NEVER the news THEY consume.the news THEY consume is hard hitting journalism.

so when i see people dismiss a piece that may happen to be on a questionable outlet..i laugh..because MOST outlets are ALL questionable.

so yes my friend,it is up to us to discern what is valid and what is bullshit.secondary sources help.concrete,trackable sources help and discussing and talking with one another is probably the greatest help of all.

but if you reside in an echo chamber,and everybody is just smelling each other farts.then some information may come as a shock.

my faith dictates my politics.
i am a dissident,and a radical.
the dynamic is always "power vs powerlessness",and i am always on the side of the powerless.

so it should be no surprise that on my list are people such as chomsky or hedges.

because they criticize power.

peoples true feelings and intent are always quickly revealed after only a short conversation.

i try...and sometimes fail..to not assume someones intent.i prefer to ask questions.

labels are just a simple way for our brains to compartmentalize aspects of personalities/philosophies regarding the people we are engaging.

some people utilize labels to dismiss what another person is laying down,often times in order to promote their own sense of justice or fairness.this always makes me laugh,because the majority of the time those people are totally unaware of their own hypocrisy.

like that a single white male is automatically racist and therefore can not offer an opinion,ignoring the fact that the very metric that they are using,is in itself,racist.

labels do serve a purpose,but we should not become so beholden to them that we refuse to consider a contrary opinion.that is just lazy.

i find that when we allow someone to speak their mind,their true feelings/intentions will always become evident in short amount of time.but if we restrict any interaction,be it vocal or written,then those feelings/intentions can remain hidden far longer than they should be.

bad ideas need to be exposed in order for those bad ideas to be challenged,and therefore dismissed for the bad ideas they are.

and while i may understand labels,and see a use for them,i also find them a lazy way to ignore uncomfortable truths.

which is what i gather you are saying?
if i got it wrong,let me know buddy.
stay awesome!