So, the context:
- this is a Funhaus clip (part of RoosterTeeth, comedy/entertainment based on videogames, mostly)
- Elyse is married to James (not in video), not Bruce
- Bruce likes to stir the shit for reasons of comedy
- Elyse's reactions to stupidity by the boys are legendary, especially when she's working on something else in the background
- Bruce's comments (and Lawrence's most of all) when taken out of context make for easy outrage material -- it's part of the shtick

I do agree, but on the other hand sometimes these things go well beyond legitimate "questions about your actions / statements / plans".

Subject even the most patient person in the world to enough stupid / leading / clickbait-y questions, and eventually they'll get annoyed with it. Which is of course the entire point, so that they can clip that reaction out of context and run it with a headline like "Watch as Senator X flies off the handle after being asked a simple question!"

Some of these incidents are definitely sleazy politicians trying to weasel out of scrutiny to the greatest degree possible. But I'm sure that many of them are the political version of Marshawn Lynch just wanting to do his goddamn job without being constantly peppered with pointless questions from the media. And we all thought he was awesome for showing up to media days and saying only "I'm just here so I don't get fined", right?

Not trying to trivialize the political arena down to the level of a public spectacle like professional sports, but I think the comparison is at least a little valid.

Thanks dag & transmopher.

Oh yeah, this 3rd Testament you advocate would be most useful. There are external references throughout the centuries that helps people understand it in better context. Matthew Henry for example - not perfect, but useful. But I'm afraid human nature would just twist and corrupt anything. Pretty soon a 4th Testament will be needed.

The big problem with religion is the defensiveness of its practitioners. When people outside of their religion points out the weird crap in their holy text (weird in the present, not so much during the time it was written), they go all up in arms and goes on the attack. Yet so many withing their rank uses bits and pieces of the text out of context to justify horrendous behavior. Where is the self-criticism? Where's the self-reflection? Where's the self-correction?

It's no wonder atheist wants religion out. But realistically, religion is not going out the door anytime soon. I can understand that want too, really, I want the bad crap out of religion just as much.

But I do see the goodness within and just trying my best to achieve the same goal from an opposite (?) vantage point. If we're all here fighting evil, I don't care in what name you do it for, I'm going to support you.

Today's terrorism problems have no better authority than Muslim leaders coming out and condemn and explain their religion to the world. Christians needs to preach compassion towards their neighbors rather than fear & loathing, it's what Jesus commands. That's peaceful, cross-faith discussions the religious leaders of all faiths lack so much of. But I just don't see much of that up top...

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.

The scariest part to me is that you can read my whole comment and think I'm defending the cop.

What I'm talking about is things that happen because a cop is poorly trained or undertrained, and I said that several times.

But go ahead and pull a couple phrases out of context if you get off that way.

I'm waiting for my apology from you for all the misplaced accusations made here.

I have now shown you unequivocally that I did none of what you accused me of...there was no exaggeration, nothing out of context, absolutely no lie told (by me)... and I actually quoted the medical paper from Hopkins, I did not tailor anything to my agenda (hilarious accusation coming from you, who does that with every bit of data you post) and did not add anything of my own.
Your post, on the other hand, is in no way in line with their synopsis, they actually clearly say so in it and warn against jumping to conclusions, a warning you ignored.

Waiting. ;-)

My OP wasn't wrong. It's inline with the John Hopkins quote you provided. But you then decided to tailor the quote to your agenda by adding your own "hypersensitive people" bit onto the end.

If you had perhaps made a measured rebuttal, I'd happily discuss this with you. But you take things out of context, you exaggerate, you lie - whatever you deem necessary to make you "right" or "win".

You always do this, regardless of the topic. Why do you even bother discussing anything?

I think those bits where Theron gets hit and falls to the railing and the floor were the bits that normally get cut. In my opinion those were the bits that look least convincing and draw people out of the action. Jackie Chan is the bible on this one - Theron probably hasn't been in many fights.

But presumably this fits to the style of the film - out of context, very few movie combat scenes would shower themselves in glory. But when you're watching say, an Arnie movie, you don't care.

So he's apologizing for 1 or 2 statements and saying the rest is all just misundertood/ out of context? A bit less than I was expecting. He was smart to remind us it isn't our place to tell him how to deal with his own abuse though. I thought the clip was much more "here's my views on the subject" than him trying to be funny and offensive, but I guess that's all subjective. Just like getting banned from Twitter, I expect this will only increase his reach in the future. And being technically correct is my main aim, so thank you.

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

We've all seen the video. Was he mocking a persons symptoms from illness, or miming for comic effect the act of backpedaling?

To me the disingenuous spin from team Trump is so blatant and laughable, it makes my brain hurt.

Trump got caught doing something he shouldn't have. An adult admits doing wrong and apologizes. A child immediately claims they didn't do it.

I'm also sick of seeing clips of speeches taken out of context.

Saw the movie last night, this scene is amazing and anything but 'hokey and cheap' I assure you. Mind your seeing this out of context as well.

**very minor spoiler**

One of the myriad dimensions displayed in the movie, the MIrror Dimension is a place that 'reflects' reality and cannot cause harm to our dimension. It is also highly susceptible to magical manipulation and is connected to the Dark Dimension which gives the villain here a very good amount of control over it. Thus he is able to warp New York city not in reality, but in this Mirror Dimension. This is why at the beginning of the video Mordo says 'this isn't a good idea, it's suicide' after Dr. Strange shifts everyone over to the Mirror Dimension to protect the normal world.

Over-all the movie is a trippy, highly unusual experience with CG unlike ever seen before. It is relatively formulaic in that many Marvel movies but because it goes places and does things never seen before you hardly notice. It's a fantastic experience.

I don't care about the timing, political motivation, etc. etc. of this discovery of new emails. I think only 2 things matter:

1) Are they real / legitimate. But with all of the previous leaks, I never saw the Clinton camp trying to suggest that anything was fabricated. Taking stuff out of context to make it appear worse than what it arguably is doesn't count count as "fabricated". As much as I dislike Clinton, I have to give her credit for dealing with the out of context stuff so far in the proper way -- fill in the context so that people can make up their own minds (like some of the Wall Street speech excerpts, "public and private position", etc.).

2) Do they show anything actually criminal, even it is relatively minor. Capone went down for tax evasion, because that was the only thing they could successfully and concretely pin on him. And yet justice was served by going forward with that.

IF (and it remains a big if) these new emails end up meeting both of those criteria, I have absolutely zero sympathy for the whining that already has and will continue to erupt from the Democrat party.

Being a candidate in a presidential election paints a giant target on you and guarantees that your past is going to be under the microscope. If you've got skeletons in your closet, there is a very high chance for them to be discovered. Trump has had a well-deserved taste of that already -- maybe it is Clinton's turn now.

Don't mind Drachen_Jager. It's not the first time he's taken things out of context. I'm sure it won't be the last.

According to the news, the car was still running, and the man was saying that the car was going to blow earlier(according to the 911 call).

So I'm guessing they thought the car could have explosives in it because of the call, and the way it was parked.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/terence-crutcher-police-shooting-tulsa-oklahoma/story?id=42217812

Would be interesting to hear what was wrong with the car. Because it's possible that the car simply overheated and that's why he said "it's going to blow". And the 911 caller just took it out of context.

Also we'll never know if he did or didn't attempt to reach into the SUV (which had it's windows down) because the helicopter was on the wrong side during the crucial moment.