You wouldn't consider Jesus to be an authority, even though He predicted His own death and resurrection, did countless miracles, and was in fact raised from the dead? It seems like you have set the bar ridiculously high here. What would it take to convince you?

There will be such a person in the last days who will do miracles and appear to be raised from the dead, and the whole world will follow after him and worship him. The bible calls this man the Antichrist.

Surprised to read that 'the cops are supposed to be the good guys', which is quite contrary to the usual rant, which seems to be 'the cops are the agents of the antichrist'.

Being anti-cop is a lot like being racist, don't you think? If you spend time with people you don't know, you can begin to relate to them. Perhaps you should spend more time with the cops in your town. Maybe there is a ride-along program. You might be surprised what you learn from the experience.

Here's a scenario for ya bobby...like, next world war shit?

3 first strike options:
conventional
nuclear
doomsday (biotech, other)

Uhh, fuck the entire planet being able to survive oblivion, how about, about a hundred mother-FUCKERS being able to survive underground just fine with all the food, pussy, and time until the shit blows over for everyone, and everything else.

Totally doable.

Talk about yer 'antichrist' scenario, and fuck yours, mine, and anyone elsers, Polytics, religion or lack thereof, this is something you may believe in.

It's the real doable shit that scares the funk outta me and should wake anyone else with a fucking clue, the motherfuck the FUCK UP!

Or I dunno, maybe I'm just some John the Baptist motherfucker, crying-out in the wilderness of complete imbeciles, myself, submiiter of embed, squirrels and dolphins, and and hater of chingy included??

Tags for this video have been changed from 'willem dafoe, antichrist, dark, creepy, fox, lons von trier' to 'willem dafoe, antichrist, dark, creepy, fox, lars von trier' - edited by dingens

Laws must be reactionary, because you should not be punished for harms that you haven't yet committed.
'Imagined future harms' are a poor reason to take action against anyone.
Fundamentally, you're not in charge of other people's imagination. That's their business, not yours.

Inevitability is not an issue, incidents are inevitable for all drivers, without exception, so long as they keep driving.
Any non-zero probability will have an incident, given enough time.

Every driver is unique, and it is not deterministic that "driver A + 3 beers" is worse than "driver B".
It's not deterministic that driver B has a lower probability of incident.

These guys were good enough to get a license, and are legally 'suitable' to drive.
They are above the "absolute bar" determining 'ok' or 'not ok' to drive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeIJ0kQtLyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I-OqmQc5hI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiRDv4nxe64
(Seriously, watch them end to end... it's amazing.)

Imagine the drivers that you know. Do you think a few beers will get them even close to as bad as the people in the links? Because it's enough to get them a DUI. Hence the irrationality of just saying "drink = unsuitable to drive".

There are lots things that impact your cognitive function.
too tired
too excited
too bored
too entertained
too preoccupied with memories
too preoccupied with anticipation
etc, etc, etc...
A driver at 90% attention due to these reasons is considered ok, but a driver at 95% attention [for whatever reason] ... that just happened to drink alcohol ... is a criminal. Again, irrationality.

The fact that you're operating in a diminished state /specifically/ due to alcohol is not meaningful.
How much you are diminished [regardless of why] is what matters - but that isn't even in the drinking and driving public discussion.
Heck, some people aren't even prepared when at 100% attention and 100% sober (like the folks in the links).

I generally dislike how unprepared drivers are.
Just being able to drive around a few blocks, parallel park, and answer a few questions from a booklet you just read 5 minutes prior, is crap criteria.
IMO, it shouldn't even be criteria until much later.
IMO, people should be able to proficiently autocross in the wet before they are even given a chance to begin learning the road rules.

IMO, people consider driving a necessity (which it is if you want a normal life), and they throw driving into the same bucket as walking.
Something they need to do every day, it's mundane, nothing special, nothing worth concerning yourself about.
If they have an "accident" (the term accident should really be "operator error" 99% of the time), they even get offended if you say that they screwed up.
Like as if it's just an "Oh well, shit happens" sort of thing, and blaming them for what they did is profane.

At the same time, there's a religion of "drinking and driving hate" that has mushroomed into something not far from crazies frothing at the mouth.
"He drank... and drove! Burn him! Burn him!" ...
Imagine being the person that was arrested, watching people talk to you like you're the antichrist himself ... and you never even hurt anyone. Discussing amongst themselves 'what they need to do to you'.

Punishing only harm has two benefits :
A) It focuses on real victims.
B) It only involves people who were demonstrably not suitable drivers (the harm is the demonstration) - without any emotional bias for the reason behind the unsuitability.

Using the law for deterrence is possibly even illegal in itself (If I had my way, it would be seen as so).
There is supposed to be "no cruel and unusual punishment".
If you ask "what makes is it cruel/unusual?" - the answer will be that it causes excessive suffering.
Deterrence consists of punishing people in excess (making examples), in the hopes that it scares 3rd parties.
So then the idea is that the suffering should be in proportion to the crime.
Making examples, is by definition, punishing in excess of what is deserved.
DUI laws are by design an exercise in exactly this.

-scheherazade

Tags for this video have been changed from 'willem dafoe, antichrist, dark, creepy, fox' to 'willem dafoe, antichrist, dark, creepy, fox, lons von trier' - edited by enoch

Antichrist - The Movie - The creepy fox scene has been added as a related post - related requested by deathcow on that post.

Antichrist - Fox Scene (creeeepy) has been added as a related post - related requested by deathcow.

Here is a much shorter clip from this scene already posted
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Antichrist-Fox-Scene-creeeepy
This one I found adds 2-3 minutes of material.

I'm still waiting for Obama to do something remotely close to Hitler, cause when he steps down peacefully in 3 years, what is everyone going to do?

It's really annoying that people who are proven wrong time and time again cling to their stupid Obama is the next Hitler or the Antichrist. If he just leaves without a fuss he's not close to Hitler you idiots, Hitler was a dictator at LEAST.

can't wait to be able to let my kids finally watch antichrist.

The antichrist numerology of Gangnam Style has been added as a related post - related requested by xxovercastxx on that post.

The antichrist numerology of Gangnam Style has been added as a related post - related requested by dingens on that post.

The antichrist numerology of Gangnam Style has been added as a related post - related requested by dingens on that post.

Thank you for the promote. It's appreciated!

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
promote