>> ^spawnflagger:

funny vid, but nothing to do with homeopathy. I think you mean "home remedies".


@messenger alrighty then ... I'm no Doctor! I'll change the title to Home Remedies ... just went with the YT description. Thanks for the heads up you two =o)

funny vid, but nothing to do with homeopathy. I think you mean "home remedies".

The remedy for a situation like this would be to simply produce some, and sell it!

Yikes.....This is terrible!!

I could break it down for yas if you want, from the remedial melody rendered in an inarticulate, off-pitched girl-grunt to the "Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" length which keeps the thing alive past a minute and a half.

Don't get me wrong, I'm one of Tesla's biggest fans but.....geeeez this is hard to listen to!

>> ^L0cky:

I'm not offended, I'm just wondering who you were referring to. It seems a little random to bring up.
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^L0cky:
huh?
>> ^dannym3141:
i tend to find that sometimes simple word play jokes can be really funny to people who don't speak english as their first language.


If you're offended by that, please explain how and i'll try to remedy the situation. It's written without malice; i hang around with other europeans a lot, and that's what i've noticed and as we have non native english speakers on the site i thought it might be why it's a popular one. I hope you don't feel that laughing at simple word play jokes is a bad thing, because i don't (i just don't like this one). Nevertheless, if i can make you feel better about the comment i will try to.



Well i think in my own head i was wondering at the way simple things become funnier when you're not native to your audience - like that guy that lives with tribes and they giggled over simple things. The internet being a big mixing pot, i was speculating at the way the basic elements of humour do well on tinternet. A bit like this and the "we are sinking" video. I think a littly too far ahead of myself at times though, and i explained it poorly, and perhaps no one cares. Send complaints on a postcard.

I'm not offended, I'm just wondering who you were referring to. It seems a little random to bring up.
>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^L0cky:
huh?
>> ^dannym3141:
i tend to find that sometimes simple word play jokes can be really funny to people who don't speak english as their first language.


If you're offended by that, please explain how and i'll try to remedy the situation. It's written without malice; i hang around with other europeans a lot, and that's what i've noticed and as we have non native english speakers on the site i thought it might be why it's a popular one. I hope you don't feel that laughing at simple word play jokes is a bad thing, because i don't (i just don't like this one). Nevertheless, if i can make you feel better about the comment i will try to.

>> ^L0cky:

huh?
>> ^dannym3141:
i tend to find that sometimes simple word play jokes can be really funny to people who don't speak english as their first language.



If you're offended by that, please explain how and i'll try to remedy the situation. It's written without malice; i hang around with other europeans a lot, and that's what i've noticed and as we have non native english speakers on the site i thought it might be why it's a popular one. I hope you don't feel that laughing at simple word play jokes is a bad thing, because i don't (i just don't like this one). Nevertheless, if i can make you feel better about the comment i will try to.

Have you heard of Mike Scott and his band the Waterboys? It's celtic folk and/or rock and roll and the band's been around since 1983 (i.e. forever) but there's nothing on vs already (well, not that I found). I have remedied this with White birds and Mad as the mist and snow.

I think that our disagreement centers around our differing opinion of the utility of religion. In my opinion, these transcendental states you speak of are not in any way dependent on a religious belief. It is true that many beautiful things have been created within the confines of religious experience. But almost all of the most profound thoughts, intricately beautiful music and profound works of literature I can think of are all written or composed in absence of religious inspiration. Sure, this is certainly a matter of opinion, but I do not think there is any denying that atheists can create beauty in their lives just as I don't deny that the religious can. Which begs the question, is it necessary? Sure many people have found inspiration in religion, however the ecstasies you speak of can just as easily be created by the biochemical effects of substances or - perhaps more healthily - the close ties of relationships or the beauty of nature.

So seeing as how beauty is not exclusively inspired by religion, I prefer my art to be entirely reality-based. And I think it's better that way. To me, knowing that that painting I am looking at, the music I am hearing or the book that I am reading has a long lineage of innovation and creativity traceable through the efforts of countless individual minds throughout time is far more interesting to me than the simple notion that someone contemplated an extremely ambiguous and enigmatic all powerful being and decided to write something about it.

Again, this is all a matter of opinion, but my point is that religion is not necessary for this transcendentalist beauty.

Which brings me to the video. I agree with you that religion is diverse and individuals typically lie along a continuum of adherence levels within each religious tradition. I also agree with you that it is far nicer when a Christian chooses to take most of the bible metaphorically, and as such has no reason to oppress homosexuals, shun scientific understanding and so on. What I do think, however, is that the step between calling yourself religious and taking most of the bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value and calling yourself an atheist and taking the entire bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value is a small and painless one.

Which is the whole point of this video.

This video is not directed at the fundamentalist Christians who hold to the literal teachings of the Bible. It is far too great a leap for them. It is directed towards people who have thought about their faith and concluded that they can not take certain parts of the bible as literal and authoritative, but still give biblical teachings some sort of privileged authority over other ideas put forth. There are many, but one of the main problems I see with this type of religion is that the privileged authority given to the bible tends to cause ignorance of other those other ideas that in reality have an equal opportunity at validity.

Which is why I posted the video.

Because it points out that applying a logical, reality-based analysis of the bible's claims (in this case, one that accepts the fact of evolution) will lead you to the conclusion that the overarching religious point of the bible is invalid. And it is simply attempting to nudge the liberal Christians who attempt to interpret the bible with a huge grain of salt just a little bit closer to atheism.

The fact is that an absence original sin means we don't need to be saved from it. Sure, we do sin and we need to do something about it, but if you are going to take the original sin as metaphorical (because evolution discredits the concept) then why should you take the biblically proposed remedy as literal? And if you're going to take the resurrection as a metaphorical assertion that you need to do this or that to improve your life and the lives of others, than why pay particular attention to that metaphorical assertion. To me, a someone who takes a vast majority of the bible as metaphorical but lives his or her life by it, is about the same as someone saying that they favor a Zizekian outlook on life - which is great and all, but again, it's limiting. There are plenty of ideas out there, go discover them and decide if they should shape your worldview!

Whether or not you think the above proposition is a better way of doing this or not, is up for debate. I think it's the way forward and videos like these help people move in that direction. They did for me.

@HadouKen24 - I think that our disagreement centers around our differing opinion of the utility of religion. In my opinion, these transcendental states you speak of are not in any way dependent on a religious belief. It is true that many beautiful things have been created within the confines of religious experience. But almost all of the most profound thoughts, intricately beautiful music and profound works of literature I can think of are all written or composed in absence of religious inspiration. Sure, this is certainly a matter of opinion, but I do not think there is any denying that atheists can create beauty in their lives just as I don't deny that the religious can. Which begs the question, is it necessary? Sure many people have found inspiration in religion, however the ecstasies you speak of can just as easily be created by the biochemical effects of substances or - perhaps more healthily - the close ties of relationships or the beauty of nature.

So seeing as how beauty is not exclusively inspired by religion, I prefer my art to be entirely reality-based. And I think it's better that way. To me, knowing that that painting I am looking at, the music I am hearing or the book that I am reading has a long lineage of innovation and creativity traceable through the efforts of countless individual minds throughout time is far more interesting to me than the simple notion that someone contemplated an extremely ambiguous and enigmatic all powerful being and decided to write something about it.

Again, this is all a matter of opinion, but my point is that religion is not necessary for this transcendentalist beauty.

Which brings me to the video. I agree with you that religion is diverse and individuals typically lie along a continuum of adherence levels within each religious tradition. I also agree with you that it is far nicer when a Christian chooses to take most of the bible metaphorically, and as such has no reason to oppress homosexuals, shun scientific understanding and so on. What I do think, however, is that the step between calling yourself religious and taking most of the bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value and calling yourself an atheist and taking the entire bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value is a small and painless one.

Which is the whole point of this video.

This video is not directed at the fundamentalist Christians who hold to the literal teachings of the Bible. It is far too great a leap for them. It is directed towards people who have thought about their faith and concluded that they can not take certain parts of the bible as literal and authoritative, but still give biblical teachings some sort of privileged authority over other ideas put forth. There are many, but one of the main problems I see with this type of religion is that the privileged authority given to the bible tends to cause ignorance of other those other ideas that in reality have an equal opportunity at validity.

Which is why I posted the video.

Because it points out that applying a logical, reality-based analysis of the bible's claims (in this case, one that accepts the fact of evolution) will lead you to the conclusion that the overarching religious point of the bible is invalid. And it is simply attempting to nudge the liberal Christians who attempt to interpret the bible with a huge grain of salt just a little bit closer to atheism.

The fact is that an absence original sin means we don't need to be saved from it. Sure, we do sin and we need to do something about it, but if you are going to take the original sin as metaphorical (because evolution discredits the concept) then why should you take the biblically proposed remedy as literal? And if you're going to take the resurrection as a metaphorical assertion that you need to do this or that to improve your life and the lives of others, than why pay particular attention to that metaphorical assertion. To me, a someone who takes a vast majority of the bible as metaphorical but lives his or her life by it, is about the same as someone saying that they favor a Zizekian outlook on life - which is great and all, but again, it's limiting. There are plenty of ideas out there, go discover them and decide if they should shape your worldview!

Whether or not you think the above proposition is a better way of doing this or not, is up for debate. I think it's the way forward and videos like these help people move in that direction. They did for me.

I love how the comment thread is almost entirely about hybrid car battery failure, and not about gas prices or politically-motivated spin.

For me, these clips are cause for a bit of soul-searching. I honestly don't recall exactly what I was saying about gas prices in 2008, but I certainly was saying Bush was at least partly to blame.

I didn't really have much proof of that, it was mostly "Bush is an oil man, and under his Presidency gas went from $1.50 to $4, so he's got to have something to do with it."

Mostly though, I think the real answer is that we do live in a free market economy, and oil price is set largely by supply and demand. The global supply has been flat, and possibly declining, while demand has been growing (mostly due to economic development in places like China and India).

The truth is we should have been making serious attempts to get ourselves off oil since at least the 70's, and because we've let Big Oil and their political allies have their way, worldwide, we're now reaching the point where the consequences of our apathy and/or defeat are becoming impossible to ignore.

Now it gets to 80 degrees in March in Ohio, gasoline costs $4/gal, and still the only remediation our political system seems likely to implement is more investment in oil production.

That could change quickly, of course. All we really need is for the right to wake up. Or drop dead. I'd be satisfied with either one at this point.

NPH has the remedy to this in his tweet.

"That Kirk Cameron is Hilarious"

This is how I like to react to crazy.

Ug.. couldn't watch the whole thing. This kind of hateful ignorance can really ruin my day. Fortunately he remedy is right here.

>> ^sillma:

Probably doesn't have the Max Payne feel because it's not developed by the same studio who did 1 and 2. Guessing it's going to be more of a GTA-esque max payne, looks a lot like the latest GTA.


Yeah, that's one reason. Rockstar are developers that just seem to watch movies. They watch movies, they write their games like movies, their games feel like movies.
Remedy on the other hand seem to read. Max Payne 1 and 2 was written to feel like a graphic novel. Alan Wake was written to feel like a novel. I bet Max Payne 3 will feature more in game movie-like cutscenes and less graphic novel cutscenes.

>> ^harlequinn:

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.
You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.
Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)
In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?
In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.
>> ^hpqp:
@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.



Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.

1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.

2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.

4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.

_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}