I also worship Dr. Manhattan, because his dick is big and blue, like Papa Smurf on steroids.

>> ^Payback:
>> ^kymbos:
Mad - can we have some context please? Is this voiced over or a genuine cartoon?

You simply MUST watch Venture Bros. Period.


Helpful.

>> ^kymbos:
Mad - can we have some context please? Is this voiced over or a genuine cartoon?


You simply MUST watch Venture Bros. Period.

I'm sorry, but the Robot Chicken re-boot of the Smurfs is the quintessential version. All else would be a slap in the face.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cronenberg, carpenter, anderson, jackson, lynch, howard, smurfs, toys, 80s' to 'cronenberg, carpenter, anderson, jackson, lynch, howard, smurfs, toys, 80s, Dan Meth' - edited by Sarzy

I think a Rated PG13 movie with Buffed up Smurfs would sell!!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'smurfs, girl, boy, mrT, bill cosby' to 'smurfs, girl, boy, mrT, bill cosby, rimjob' - edited by MrFisk

I seriously don't remember this from the 80s, 90s or ever!
Not to mention that video quality is quite good, It looks corny like an 80s cartoon but compared to things like Smurfs, GI Joe, and Transformers, This looks a lot newer than 80s cartoon making...

Anyone else know for sure???

(Edit - Not that I don't think it's cool...)

Is she a companion cube?

In reply to this comment by Razor:
I had my girlfriend (six years younger) watch this and her comments were mainly of utter confusion =P

you (and, to a lesser extent the asses who created that Smurfs game) have inspired me to post another Coleco goodie:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Coleco-Vision-The-Only-Gaming-System-You-ll-Ever-Need

I lost it when the smurf keeled over from touching a blade of grass.. omg

When you see Yo Yo Ma, play this video. http://www.videosift.com/video/Obama-theme-song-Colecovision-Smurf-Adventure

Obama song is Smurf Adventure for Coleco??!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmzPC-kLQec

at the request of MarineGunrock:

I mean every time you take a dump are you disappointed with what came out? Of course not! Are you disgusted or appalled to some degree? Probaby. Why you might ask? It's human waste! It wasnt meant to be a glorious, shining, relic that you want to hang on the mantle. It's meant to flush down the damn toilet. But you wouldnt want Americans (or humans to be more vague) to stop shitting would you?

So please, please stop trying to make war out to be synonymous with the Smurfs.

It's war. It's disgusting, it's violent, it's detestable, it's unfriendly, and it's not fair. It's not designed or intended to be anything but. If you dont like it, eat a dick. It's not changing

>> ^quantumushroom:
Most people wish to see good deeds and work rewarded and bad deeds and evil punished. That's how we roll on earth. I find it amusing that you wouldn't care about rewards versus punishment for MT and Hitler, yet you find the 'golden parachute' concept upsetting.

---
They're dead, so their eternal suffering, joy or nothingness affects only them. As far as our need to see rewards and punishments: I do not believe eternal suffering, nor eternal reward to be an aspect of justice, for it serves only the purpose of satisfying a lust, not a function. If their postmortem reward or punishment (not the idea of it, but the truthful existence of it) affected us in a positive, progressive way, only then would it be a worthwhile system of dealing with what we consider injustice. However, because it is uncertain that there is a force which doles out afterlife justice, we have no business worrying about it. We can appreciate what dead people did while they were alive, or be glad they're dead because they were a hinderance to the progress of life.

I don't disagree (ha!) with the idea of religion; I believe it serves a function, especially at our point in evolution, where we are only beginning to come to terms with these absract concepts. But religion all too often is a closed system, causing divides that need not exist. Yes, religion has done good -- let's keep that aspect; but it needs to be fluid. All philospohy of worth should be as an ocean, whether it be concerned with possible existence/nonexistence of gods or scientific understanding of our universe.
---

Yes, for most people, God serves in part as a kind of Keeper of Scorecards, but rewards and punishment may be only one aspect of an "afterlife" which technically is consciousness after this life.

You're perhaps assuming that the endgame of religion is to
follow rules now to live in a Heaven forever, which would mean
some sort of consciousness apart from a Creator. That may not
be it at all. Buddha described Nirvana as 'the end of
suffering' and left it at that. Buddhism is atheistic.

---
I'm assuming that the interpretation of the majority of mainstream religions are to live in a Heaven forever, because that is how I have encountered them with almost everyone I've ever known or known about. I'm not opposed to the idea of an afterlife, I simply find it a moot point. As the living, we should be concerned with life, not death.
---

You claim moral relativism exists, but for the atheist, does evil exist?

Which way of living demands more responsibility, the
religious person trying to follow moral precepts or someone who
doesn't necessarily care what happens because nothing finally
matters; death is the End? I don't want to live in a society
where everyone makes their own rules up as they go along; few
atheists would either.

Since for the atheist there is no Prime Mover behind what
society commonly defines as "goodness", why would an atheist
seek to enforce any kind of (self) responsibility at all? If
you felt bad about hurting someone because you didn't treat
them according to the Golden Rule, why not just kill them? If
there was no afterlife they would simply cease to exist along
with their pain and the question of right or wrong would be moot.

Yes, I'm being a tad silly, but hopefully I've made some half-assed point that, "Morality has to come from somewhere."

---
Your points are not silly at all, merely common interpretations -- and I don't mean that pejoratively. I do not believe in evil in such a rigid, unrealistic way. Evil could be considered any action which seeks or causes an end to life. But evil is not necessarily bad. Cancer kills, human dies, human returns to earth, new life begins. From "evil" comes "good". A supernova could be considered evil, but it also gives birth to new life, which is good. I believe our existence within a realm of constant destruction dictates to us the sanctity of life, and thus morality. Life is the underdog in this universe, which will become apparent (to whatever exists in this solar system) when our sun decides to stop behaving as it is now. It's not always a struggle for power, but a struggle for life itself. Yes, in a relative universe you may decide to kill your fellow man, but on a macro level you become in conflict with life, in favor of destruction. Just as truth is valued over the lie, life is favored over death for very practical, and often poetic reasons that need not stem from God.

Concepts such as "morality" exist on the human level to illustrate and teach. Ideas and concepts are not so rigid as to dictate what is always right and wrong, nor should they ever be used to represent an absolute; espcially one as silly as "evil".
---

You are perhaps basing your argument against either the
existence of God or belief in God on the idea that since
religions provide conflicting statements, all of them must therefore be
false.

Religions are not God. Religion is a human endeavor and
therefore flawed, whereas the nature (or concept) of God is
perfection.

---
God as perfection is an assumption lacking observation. The nature of God (assuming it exists) cannot possibly be determined; though I'm not in opposition to the idea of that possible explanaion, let's not kid ourselves that the idea is anything but assumed. (Assumption not necessarily being a bad thing, but also not something to base your existence on.)
---

If I say, "We are breathing air" in English and you say it in
French, is one of us 'lying?'

Also, to many atheists why is 'lying' only a feature of religion? You mean atheists never tell lies--even little ones--when it suits them?

---
Lies are available for all to use. I wouldn't dream say otherwise.
---

Faith is not logical and much of religion isn't either, but to dismiss them all out of hand seems rather absolute, in a world where "there are no absolutes".

We can all agree when out brains die, if there is nothing, we will "experience" nothing forever. If there is an afterparty, atheist and believer alike will go "somewhere" even if it's only within their own consciousness.

---
On the contrary, faith is perfectly logical. I have faith in my senses enough to walk outside on a cool, winter day and not expect to walk into lava. Unless I smell sulfur... then I'd become suspicous, maybe I'd notice the increase in heat, and my faith will change. No longer can I have complete faith that outside is a good place to go. Just as my faith in Santa Claus went to zero, and my faith in God went to near zero, based upon observation and learning.

As humanbeings, we do not have the capacity to say anything with 100% certainty, so we must be careful to organize our minds into tiers of belief/faith. (Forgive my semantics; tier is perhaps not the best word, but I'm tired right now) Your immediate senses being on the top tier, followed by recognized patterns from experience, down to intellectual knowledge from schooling, on down to some philosophical interpretations, religion, God or gods, etc. (The existence of smurfs being, obviously far down at the bottom -- much farther than God even.)

Humans are unique in that we are deeply affected by ideas; but ideas have no corporeal nature that we are aware of (yet), so we cannot let any one idea rule our lives, but rather let us rule them. We are the makers of dreams, and need not suffer otherwise -- unless Kai'ckul visits my dreams and says otherwise.