So, they start by telling you how different human meat is from pork, then end by saying just eat pork instead of long pig, they taste the same. Which is it?!
At least they didn't ignore Kuru, (CJD) but outside Papua New Guinea and Britain prions aren't common as far as we know.
I was disappointed they left out how contaminated most long pig is, humans eat crap, who wants to eat meat full of pharmaceuticals and red dyes?

Oh FFS, here we go again with Maher deliberately missing the point.

Honestly, I used to think there were a few topics he should steer clear of (his anti-vax conspiracy nonsense to start with), but now I'm starting to think there are only a few topics he should comment on.

Even his schtick on religion is pretty fucking tired compared to much better commentators.

So fine, let's address the elephant in the room. The problem with this movie is that it holds up AMY FUCKING SCHUMER and goes "hah! look at her... the pig thinks she's good looking... how hilarious", when Amy Schumer is gorgeous.

So yeah, I'll go full SJW (never go full SJW!!) and say that this just reinforces the impossible beauty standard foisted on women that says if you're not Scarlett Johansson, you're not good looking.

If you want to hear a grown up who actually knows about film talk about the movie, watch Mark Kermode.

"Pig Pen, this here's the Rubber Duck.
"We just ain't a-gonna pay no toll."
So we crashed the gate doing ninety-eight
I says "Let them truckers roll, 10-4."

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.

The reason for the Heaven and Earth part is to reaffirm what He said in the previous verse, which is that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. He is saying the law cannot be destroyed. The reason He was strongly reaffirming that is because that is exactly what the Pharisees accused Him of doing.

As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

lol

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

The law is not everything, but the context of that statement is that He is fulfilling the law. The "all" then is all that which is written for Him to fulfill. An example that ties in would be in Luke 4:21

Also, a main piece you are skipping over is where Jesus said He didn't come to destroy the law but fulfill it. That tells you the meaning of what He is talking about. He is definitely saying that the law can be fulfilled, and it can be fulfilled by Him. This is the meaning of the text, that He had come to fulfill it and would (and did) fulfill it.

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

He didn't oppose Gods law, He brought something into the situation that had never been there before, which is grace. Since He is the Lord, He can do that. That is exactly what He came to earth to do, which is to bring forgiveness and salvation by faith through grace.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?

I would venture to guess that the majority of the citizens of Israel had never killed anyone except perhaps if they were in the army. You make it sound like they were a bunch of barbarians running around and bashing peoples heads in. The reality is, everyone knew the law and knew the penalty of certain things was death. It probably would have been relatively rare that people were caught violating laws that led to the death penalty. Jesus followed the law perfectly but it doesn't mean He killed anyone. The only example we have in scripture of that situation is when He showed grace.

".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

It would have been right for Him to stone someone who broke the law but the person would be judged by the priests before that could happen. I just doubt that it ever did happen and nothing is mentioned about it in scripture.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Jesus is not a myth, first of all. Even Richard Dawkins believes He was a real person. I enjoyed Aesops fables; my grandfather gave me a book of them as a child (I wish I could find it now). I haven't looked them over in awhile so I can't say what I do or don't agree with. The question is, how are they objectively good? By that I don't mean, something that appeals to you personally. What I mean is, what makes them transcendent above mere human opinion?

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.
As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?
".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

You're not reading the verse correctly

Maybe this will help..here is 3/4ths of the verse:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,

Jesus is saying here that nothing in the law will be altered until Heaven and Earth pass away..which is basically a way of saying it won't ever happen. Its the same as saying that something won't happen until pigs fly. Now comes the exception:

till all be fulfilled

Jesus is saying here that the law can be done away with when all is fulfilled. You are putting the fulfillment together with Heaven and Earth passing away for some reason. It doesn't say Heaven and Earth passing away is when the law will be fulfilled, does it? He just said in the previous verse that He came to fulfill it!

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil

So if the law can't pass away until all is fulfilled, and He fulfilled it, that means He can establish a New Covenant, which He did. God told us this would happen in the Old Testament:

Jeremiah 31:31-32

31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

The bible tells us that Jesus followed the law perfectly. It doesn't mean that He killed anyone. When the Pharisees brought a women caught in Adultery and told Him to stone her..He confronted them with their sins and then forgave the woman. Jesus is the Lord and can forgive sins.

Now that I've answered your questions, could you answer mine?

Why do you think Aesop can bear the weight of objective morality?

This brings up some interesting points.

What is an "assault rifle"? My grand-dad's 303 bolt action rifle was used to fight Germans in the war. It was an "assault rifle". Yet I don't believe this is what you mean. Do you mean AR-15s or similar? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle. It was a select fire gun (capable of automatic fire). The civilian version is semi-automatic. It isn't an "assault rifle" but you could use it as one. You can use any gun as an assault weapon if you so choose to designate it for that purpose.

You may not need a semi-auto for deer hunting, but hunting doesn't end with one animal. Going duck hunting - it's much easier with a semi-auto and 6 round versus a 2 round break action. Going on a pig hunt (for animal destruction). You'll want a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

What about home defense? You most certainly DO need a semi-auto long gun. If you choose a pistol over a long gun then you are putting yourself at a massive disadvantage - and the whole point of using a tool to defend yourself is to give yourself an advantage over the aggressor.

Should a gun be harder to get in the USA? In my opinion yes. It should be harder. Whether that is by making ownership of some firearms dependent on being an active member of a club (where the club has the requirement to be each other's keeper) or stopping unvetted second hand sales or some other solution or combination thereof, I don't know the answer. But the two suggestions I've put here are a really good start. Along with a storage onus (don't properly store your firearm and it gets used in a crime - you get a BIG fine). Basically I believe there are plenty of solutions that won't infringe on an American's 2nd amendment rights to acquire and own a firearm.

i was going to invest the time in a reasoned response but i think "fuck that pig" will suffice.

Mmmmmm.....long pig. Best slow smoked with fruit wood.

no pigs were harmed in this episode

No, not take Weinstein for example, that is an entirely different case and it undermines your position to use such an obvious straw man.

Society promotes the concept that men are violent, women are not. Any man that uses physical violence on a women is evil and if a woman raises a hand to a man and he strikes her in defense, he would still be the one that had to explain himself. Look at the Duluth model re: domestic violence sometime to see how truly baked in the myth that men are the perps and women are the vics...

https://medium.com/iron-ladies/men-are-still-pigs-the-politicization-of-domestic-violence-2cfa7488c204 (written by a woman for noting)

Particularly salient.

[i]It’s clear to me that despite the fact the Duluth Model has proven to be worthless, programs still adhere to the same principles. Men are still the automatic perpetrators, women are always victims. What’s worse is the men under attack by violent wives have no way of protecting themselves. Their right to self-defense in domestic violence cases has been cancelled.[/i]

I'm all for acknowledging that differences between the sexes is an absolutely real thing, but the long and the short of it is that women are basically allowed to assault men almost without consequences, but in the reverse situation the man would (justifiably) have the book thrown at him. And while men do have the physical advantage (although not always), they are hamstrung by society. The mere threat of a rape accusation (or far worse, the accusation that the husband has been abusing the kids) would silence most men in a heartbeat because they understand that the police, the judge, the social workers will believe the woman first.

Violence is wrong as is giving women a free pass because they rolled vagina in the game of life.

Then he should QUIT HIS FUCKING JOB and find something else to do!

He is nothing but an insecure, small-dick, power tripping, pig!

If he really received those orders from his supervisor then it's pretty scary still that this fuckface did not have the common sense/decency to question that order when it was obvious the nurse was following protocol but was also stuck between policy & navigating an unfamiliar situation.

I sentence the pig to 6 months in a mental health facility and 2 DMT injections a week to diffuse his ego & expand his consciousness (and maybe he goes to hell once or twice).

All the time.
Local pigs are often in the pocket of big biz and work as their muscle.

Good point, I was too lazy to post the link, my bad. List of quotes from people who Gary has misrepresented: http://www.bodyforwife.com/an-open-letter-to-gary-taubes/

(for newtboy, notice how this is not a vegan website, nor are the people complaining about Gary Taubes vegan researchers)


Sugar consumption going down since the late 90s https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/02/25/surprise-american-sugar-consumption-is-on-the-decline

Indeed this video is about sugar, but it's a common strategy to use sugar to demonise carbs(the only research you will ever find where "carbs" are bad for you, always use sugar of some type). Every single popular diet today uses this kind of shitty research to back up their diets. They're all variations of low-carb: atkins, paleo, keto, isogenics etc because this is what sells the most animal products, which is a far more lucrative industry than grains and beans. But possibly more importantly it doesn't work in the long run! So you have repeat customers. They lose weight quickly for 6 months, then in 12-18 months time they are heavier than how they started.



BTW this is vegan http://www.blogto.com/restaurants/doomies-toronto/

You don't have to eat healthy all the time once you are at a stable weight and your other biosigns are good, pig out every now and then .

Life won't be so short this way ;-) (on average 13 years longer)