LOL.

Mumford & Sons is one of the few bands I would pay good money to see... and that list is shortened by the fact that some of them simply can't tour with the proper lineup (Pink Floyd, the Beatles), others likely would never (classic Genesis with Gabriel, among the few single acts I would see)... Some I might see only if they were part of a larger festival, but these guys I would see on their own... if the unique combo of time, money and location ever came together.

Discovered them here on the Sift a couple years ago when The Cave was first posted and have been a fan ever since. So thank you Sift.

>> ^carrot:

>> ^GDGD:
Wow. WOW! Can I give you a NON-GAY-FOR-THEM love letter, to pass on to them?
>> ^carrot:
Have to upvote - I know the bango player!


No sorry I am under strictest instructions to only pass on gay love letters...

Pffft, jja is a one trick hack who can never deliver anything worth while, because all he cares about is having a carrot dangling over people who pay to watch him dangling it while adding more lens flares.

>> ^messenger:
Wow. I'm surprised to hear there are Christian churches that don't practice sacraments. Do you mean, none of them? No weddings, no communion, no confession, no confirmation, no last rites, no.... the other ones? Especially communion seems a strange omission since you were commanded by Jesus to do so. Or did you interpret, "Do this in memory of me" to only apply to the Apostles?


You won't find the word sacrament in the bible. Marriage, that is fine. Baptism too, although it isn't sprinkling like the catholic church teaches; it is full body immersion. Child baptism is not biblical. Christians should take communion, but not according to the pagan rituals of the catholic church, or regarding what they call the "trans-substantiation". The cracker does not literally become the flesh of Jesus, nor the wine His literal blood. It is simply something we do to symbolize our fellowship with Him, and the body of Christ.

The rest you have mentioned are nowhere to be found in the bible. They simply come from the traditions of the catholic church. It is not a Christian institution, and this is why neither you or your family has ever come to know Jesus Christ.

>> ^messenger:
With my question here, I was indirectly taking issue with your assertion that only if I pledge myself to Jesus can I truly commune with God. So in my question, my intent was to find out if you ever fully give yourself to any religion before Christianity, like become an active, fervent follower. I'm guessing the answer is no. If I'm right, then I don't see how you can say Christianity is the only way to commune with God. If I'm wrong, and you did fully dedicate your soul to some other religion first, then I'd simply like to hear about that experience.


My experience was, that after I became aware that God exists, He led me through the various religions and philosophies of the world over a number of years. He gave me clues along the way, leading me step by step, until He finally brought me to the bible. This was not a natural progression for me, because I had a big resistance to Christianity. It was actually one of the religions I thought was the least likely to be true. But He had given me signs beforehand about truth that was in the bible that I didn't understand at the time, so that when I started to read the bible, I could see it was His book. This gave me enough faith in it to give my life to Christ, and when I did, He supernaturally transformed my life. This isn't stated metaphorically; I mean it in a literal sense.

>> ^messenger:
I think you know what I believe and don't, and what I know and what I don't. At this stage, I think definitions are just semantics, and I'm not going to explain again what those words really mean. So, here's my official statement with all the contentious words taken out: I don't believe that any description of God I've ever heard is true, and I don't know if my belief is accurate.


What that means is that you don't know if there is a God or not. That makes you an agnostic and not an atheist.

>> ^messenger:
Seriously? You cannot claim to understand science, and then state that the burden for a non-claim lies with the person not making the claim. Scientist Anna says, "I believe the Higgs boson exists." Scientist Bob says, "I don't believe that the Higgs boson exists." Neither of them have any evidence. Anna is introducing a novel assertion about something. Bob isn't. Bob can ask Anne to prove it exists. Anne cannot ask Bob to prove it doesn't exist. Anne may, however, ask Bob why he doesn't believe it exists, since the Standard Model predicts its existence. If Bob shows why be believes the prediction is false, either by showing the SM has been used incorrectly, or stating he doesn't believe in SM at all, that's the end of his "burden" for that question. He does not have to scientifically prove the Higgs boson doesn't exist. He can't. It's logically impossible.


I understand I have my own burden of proof, but if someone wants to say that I am wrong, they are making a negative claim. It's up to them to provide reasons to substantiate their claim, and no, I don't think this need constitute absolute proof. If they're just saying "I don't know", then that is a different story. Most atheists don't want to concede that they don't know, because then they would have to admit that God could possibly exist, so they invent a new definition of atheism to obscure their true position.

>> ^messenger:
The theistic equivalent is you asking my why I don't believe in God. To this I tell you that to me, there's insufficient evidence, which is a position you should understand since it was exactly your own position until you got some direct evidence. That's the end of my "burden".


It depends on what you're trying to claim, about your own beliefs, or mine. Yes, I can relate to your position, having been there. That is why I describe atheism as religion for people who have no experience with God. I too was a true believer in naturalistic materialism until that veil was torn, and then I immediately realized that everything I knew, was in some way, wrong. Can you even conceive of such a thing, messenger? Do you care enough about the truth to be willing to let the tide take your sandcastle away from you?

>> ^messenger:
An equivalent for you might be if I asked you to prove to me that Thor and Ra don't exist. You couldn't. You could only give your reasons why you believe they don't exist. Same here. I'm in the same position as you, except I don't believe that Thor, Ra or Yahweh exist.


I wouldn't try to prove to you that Thor or Ra do not exist. I believe they do exist, but that they are not actually gods. They are fallen angels masquarading as gods, as with every other false idol.

>> ^messenger:
And my point is I wouldn't spend any effort trying to rule it out at all. I would just assume you're another false buried money promiser and move on. The reason I'm talking now isn't to rule anything out -- I never accepted the premise to begin with.


That's exactly the point; your conclusion is fallacious. You merely assume I am wrong because some people have made similar claims which were false. That is not a criterion for determining truth. If you had an incurable disease and only had a few days to live, and some people came to you promising a cure, and some of those claims turned out to be false, would you refuse to entertain any further claims and simply assume they are all false? I think not.

>> ^messenger:
Changing my whole perspective of the universe is an immense effort of mind. It's not "nothing". And why would I bother? Just to win an argument with you? Like I said above, I don't for a minute accept it's true, so I have no motivation for spending any energy proving it.


What effort does it take to entertain a possibility? You could simply pray something like this:

Jesus, I admit that I do not actually know if you are God or not. I would like to know whether it is true. Jesus, if it is true then I invite you into my life right now as Lord and Savior. I ask that you would forgive me for all of my sins, sins that you shed your blood on the cross for. I ask that you would give me the gift of faith, and help me turn from my sins. I ask that you send your Holy Spirit to me right now. I thank you Jesus for saving me.

If you pray that and sincerely mean what you say, then I have no doubt Jesus will answer it.

>> ^messenger:
1. No. If that's true, he gave me my life, and he can take it away if he wants to, but I have no respect for Indian givers.


It's appointed one for man to die, and then the judgment. He isn't going to take away your life, he is going to judge the one you have. Do you believe that you should be above His law?

>> ^messenger:
2. No. I don't serve anyone. He can do what he likes. He made me the way I am -- someone who relies on empirical evidence and sceptical about all superstition, and if he doesn't like it, it's his own fault. He should love me the way I am. And if he does, he should just let me come into heaven because he loves me, not because he needs me to worship him. I don't like egotists any more than Indian givers.


That isn't true; you serve yourself. If God has a better plan than you do, and your plan can only lead to a bad end, why wouldn't you serve God?

Yes, God made you the way you are, a person who knows right from wrong and has sufficient understanding to come to a knowledge of the truth. He loves you, but not your sin. He gave you a conscience to know right from wrong, and when you deliberately choose to do wrong, it isn't His fault. Yet He is patient with you, because He wants you to repent from your sin, so you can go to Heaven. As it stands now, you're a criminal in His eyes, and you are headed for His prison called hell, and He would be a corrupt judge if He just dismissed your case. But He is merciful and doesn't want to send you there. That is why He has given you an opportunity to be forgiven for your sins and avoid punishment. He sent His only Son to take your punishment, so that He can legally dismiss your case and forgive you, but also you must repent from your sins. If you refuse to stop doing evil, why do you think you should be allowed in?

>> ^messenger:
3. Yes and no. Yes, if Jesus turns out to be God, then there'll be no faith required. I'll know it. You can't disbelieve something you know is true. But no, I wouldn't trust him. A god isn't by definition benevolent or omni-anything. If he told me to accept that anal sex is a sin, he and I would get into a debate about what "sin" really is, why he defined sins to begin with, why he created the universe such that people would sin, why sin displeases him, and how those people can be faulted for following God's own design. And if the only way he could convince me he was right was by threatening me with eternal torment in a pit of fire, and promising to reward me with eternal happiness if I agreed with him, then I'd think he must have a pretty weak argument if he has to resort to carrot and stick tactics. I likewise don't like people who resort to violence or threats of violence to make people agree with them.


There'll be no faith required when you die and see Jesus at the judgment seat, but it will also be too late to receive forgiveness for your sins. Neither is God trying to convince you that He is right, because your conscience already tells you that you are wrong. You know that you are a sinner, and that you've broken Gods commandments hundreds, if not thousands of times. You're acting like I don't know you are a human being. What are you possibily going to have to say to a Holy God with your entire life laid bare before Him?

Ask yourself these questions; if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him? Would you serve Him the rest of your days? Would you place your entire faith and trust in Him alone?

1. No. If that's true, he gave me my life, and he can take it away if he wants to, but I have no respect for Indian givers.

2. No. I don't serve anyone. He can do what he likes. He made me the way I am -- someone who relies on empirical evidence and sceptical about all superstition, and if he doesn't like it, it's his own fault. He should love me the way I am. And if he does, he should just let me come into heaven because he loves me, not because he needs me to worship him. I don't like egotists any more than Indian givers.

3. Yes and no. Yes, if Jesus turns out to be God, then there'll be no faith required. I'll know it. You can't disbelieve something you know is true. But no, I wouldn't trust him. A god isn't by definition benevolent or omni-anything. If he told me to accept that anal sex is a sin, he and I would get into a debate about what "sin" really is, why he defined sins to begin with, why he created the universe such that people would sin, why sin displeases him, and how those people can be faulted for following God's own design. And if the only way he could convince me he was right was by threatening me with eternal torment in a pit of fire, and promising to reward me with eternal happiness if I agreed with him, then I'd think he must have a pretty weak argument if he has to resort to carrot and stick tactics. I likewise don't like people who resort to violence or threats of violence to make people agree with them.

'Cuz I'll be bakin' carrot biscuits, every day!

>> ^messenger:

I have a feeling we're going to disagree on this one, but you might be interested in hearing my take.
I agree that giving in and letting it go would have been a bad choice on his part. However, I don't think the father communicated anything useful to the daughter. I don't think she was capable of receiving the intended message in her condition. An adult would have understood it. Maybe after a nap she would have understood it, but that girl there was beyond learning at that point. This is not a teaching moment.
To me, this scene shows disrespect for the kid's feelings. For her own reasons, not the least of which is being overly-tired, she very strongly doesn't want to put the bowl in the sink. For all the effort she's making to avoid moving the bowl, the parent is making as much effort to make her move the bowl. Both sides are working harder now than it would take to move the bowl. It has ceased to be about the bowl, or about chores, and now it's a battle of wills. The kid is learning that daddy is more powerful than her and his seemingly random orders are more important than how she feels. She's 3 years old and exhausted, so that's all she's internalizing. She isn't learning anything about responsibility, or cleanliness, or aesthetics or feelings. She's not learning why she should put the bowl away instead of her dad. Her dad's avoiding the task just as much as she is. The only difference is he's smarter and more powerful.
This is a common stance of parents, but not a necessary one. The first part of my answer is I would not tell my kids to do any chores, but instead ask them to do things, just like I would ask an adult, giving them as much autonomy as possible. If they didn't do them, I would explain my feelings about why I wanted them done, explain how it made me feel to see those things not done and how it felt to do those things myself without their help. I would hear their side about it and compare it with my own. If they still refused, I would establish consequences that don't require their cooperation (like I choose not to serve any dessert, rather than grounding). If you're doubtful it could work, this is what my sister did with her two. The result? By age six they were arguing with the parents over who got to do the dishes. Contributing felt like a reward for them because they understood the consequences of their choice either way.
The second part of my answer is about this exact situation. Let's say I forgot about my position on not telling my kids to do things, and accidentally got into a stupid win-lose (or even lose-lose) battle of wills with my 3-year-old daughter. Once I realized I was in a situation I had wanted to avoid and it was my fault (you can't fault the 3-year-old), I would change the dialogue to resolve it in such a way that both of us felt good -- or as good as we could, considering. First, I would never pretend that I believed the lie that it's too heavy. This just encourages the behaviour. I would start off by acknowledging her feelings (upset, tired, angry, frustrated, ...) and eliciting confirmation. I would aim for some sort of compromise, like she goes for her nap now, and we agree to talk about the bowl after. The goal would be her understanding the point, not getting her to move the bowl.
When she left, I would put the bowl away, and after her nap, I'd explain like I said in the first part about my feelings around chipping in. If she's too young to understand the connection between my feelings and her doing chores, then she's too young to be expected to do meaningful chores.


The method described that your sister uses is guilt tripping and extortion. Using emotional guilt as a lever and the threat of no dessert (carrot and stick) is hardly more enlightened then flat out requiring that the job be done. And every parent uses it at some point.

And as for 'you can't fault a 3 year old', are you fucking stoned? Talk about arrogance, 'oh, their precious little intellects aren't developed enough to understand what's going on'. Bullshit. 2-3 year olds learn things very very fast (I call it 'velociraptoring'), and they're a lot brighter than you give them credit for. Isn't that the point of your whole parenting by negotiation schtick?

Moving this video to carrot's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Proverbs 14:12

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death

That's your version of history, but it isn't the correct one. In the beginning, God made them male and female. I also understand that you're incapable of seeing sex except through the lens of your own gratification.

Romans 8:7

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

You said it yourself, it's as close to God as you get in life; it's an idol for you. The law your idol gives you is the pleasure principle, and whatever seems right to you, that's what you do. You don't think you're doing anything wrong because it makes you feel good.

The very last thing anyone wants to hear is that they're guilty, especially when it involves something they enjoy. You don't like to think of yourself as a sinner, even though you have undoubtably broken Gods laws thousands of times. It's the front that people maintain, as if they are white as snow; how dare you accuse me! I know better; all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Your conscience is burdened by your secret sins, and Gods knows, even if you pretend they never happened. God will forgive you, if you repent and ask Him into your life. If not, you will answer for all of them at the judgement seat.

Your moral relativism is nothing more than nihilism. Man brought sin and evil into the world, and he knows that some things are absolutely wrong. Everyone understands this at an intrinsic level, but the reasoning is corrupted by carnality. The mind will do anything, believe anything, to justify its own sin. It will lash out, dismiss, reason away, mock or flatly try to destroy anything which sheds light on its misdeeds.

John 3:19

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

I know what's going on in my own mind, and my mind is at rest. God gives me peace, and I am free. Do you control your thoughts or do your thoughts control you? You see religion as a crutch, and to some it is, by Jesus takes away crutches. Everything the world needs to get by, I can do without. All I need is Jesus, and He is my sufficiency. In that is hope, joy and love.

Sin always has consequences. Maybe you're not honest enough to admit to yourself the consequences sin has brought into your life, but I guarantee you, if you looked at everything in your life that you have done which is against the law of God, you will see quite a bit of misery that you could have avoided. You might even think it was worth it, but you don't see the flip side of it, of what you have lost that you never knew you had. God has a plan that is better than your plan, to give you a hope and prosper you, but you choose to do it your way, and you reap what you sow. You cannot see the pitfalls that are ahead of you. You have blinders on, because you love your sin more than the truth.


>> ^messenger:
You're wrong. Sex predates both marriage and religion. Sex wasn't designed by God (except in that if you believe in intelligent design, creatures evolved to be able to do it, and to enjoy it, which makes all kinds of sense, from that perspective). Picking and choosing things essentially at random from the world and putting them into categories of bad and good, and describing all the "good" things as things that God designed and intended, and things that are "bad" as things that Satan designed (sins) is naive and puerile.
Sex is absolutely wonderful, and when I'm having sex within the bounds of a solid committed relationship, there's pretty much no better feeling in the world. That's about as close to God as I get. But even sex outside a committed relationship is awesome and life-affirming too. If nobody told you there was something wrong with extramarital sex, it would never occur to you that it was bad (unlike rape and murder, which we instinctively know is wrong). Taking beautiful things and calling them sins, and calling people who do them sinners is wrong. That's something else my conscience tells me. It creates people who believe they are bad and that God is unhappy. Religion invented evil and sin, and probably with the best intentions. But just the same, without religion, there would be no concept of evil or sin, just social mores, people who do things that we don't like, or don't approve of. And sex is by far the strongest case I can think of because outside a religious framework, sex is just pure wonderful.
Your fourth paragraph nearly perfectly applies to you. I hardly have to change a word, just remove the sentence specifically referencing Christians: Religion is superstitious garbage. You put it in a mind, and garbage like your absolutist and arrogant judgements and views on morality come out. When you opened the door to religion (as you constantly encourage us to do), boy oh boy did it ever enter and create a stronghold in your mind. The enemy (I wouldn't use such strong terms) has conquered you and now exerts nearly complete control over your life. You're so close to the problem you can't even see that it's a problem. It takes someone further away from it (non-faithers) to let you know. You're welcome.>> ^shinyblurry:
This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.
Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.
I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.
Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.
You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.

You're wrong. Sex predates both marriage and religion. Sex wasn't designed by God (except in that if you believe in intelligent design, creatures evolved to be able to do it, and to enjoy it, which makes all kinds of sense, from that perspective). Picking and choosing things essentially at random from the world and putting them into categories of bad and good, and describing all the "good" things as things that God designed and intended, and things that are "bad" as things that Satan designed (sins) is naive and puerile.

Sex is absolutely wonderful, and when I'm having sex within the bounds of a solid committed relationship, there's pretty much no better feeling in the world. That's about as close to God as I get. But even sex outside a committed relationship is awesome and life-affirming too. If nobody told you there was something wrong with extramarital sex, it would never occur to you that it was bad (unlike rape and murder, which we instinctively know is wrong). Taking beautiful things and calling them sins, and calling people who do them sinners is wrong. That's something else my conscience tells me. It creates people who believe they are bad and that God is unhappy. Religion invented evil and sin, and probably with the best intentions. But just the same, without religion, there would be no concept of evil or sin, just social mores, people who do things that we don't like, or don't approve of. And sex is by far the strongest case I can think of because outside a religious framework, sex is just pure wonderful.

Your fourth paragraph nearly perfectly applies to you. I hardly have to change a word, just remove the sentence specifically referencing Christians: Religion is superstitious garbage. You put it in a mind, and garbage like your absolutist and arrogant judgements and views on morality come out. When you opened the door to religion (as you constantly encourage us to do), boy oh boy did it ever enter and create a stronghold in your mind. The enemy (I wouldn't use such strong terms) has conquered you and now exerts nearly complete control over your life. You're so close to the problem you can't even see that it's a problem. It takes someone further away from it (non-faithers) to let you know. You're welcome.>> ^shinyblurry:

This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.
Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.
I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.
Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.
You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.

This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.

Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.

I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.

Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.

You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.


>> ^messenger:
"This degenerate culture?" You mean, every human culture? Men, in general, deep down, feel this way. And, like O'Neal points out, men and women are naturally programmed to think and feel differently about sex. It's in our nature -- or if you prefer, it's the way God intended. If men thought about sex the same way that women do, there wouldn't have been enough sex happening to propagate the species. And if women were as casual about sex as men are, then we wouldn't have secure enough families to raise a successful child. It's the balance of nature. We need both men's huge sex drive and women's preference for lifelong bonding for survival as a species. Men who don't want sex and women who don't want family stability didn't have children who survived, and that's why there's so few of either type around now.
You can't stop men's sex drive, not even with religion. Evidence? The more religious/conservative neighbourhoods of Istanbul (where I live) are the ones with the most sexual assaults on the street. In my liberal neighbourhood just 15 minutes away, a woman can go get bread at 2 am. Want something closer to home? The more conservative states are the ones where men consume the most porn per capita. Utah is #1! And in the extreme, among professions where sex is forbidden (meaning Catholic priests only), there's a massive problem with child rape. You, SB, may be a shining knight following the path of the Lord, but those around you pretending to be pious are getting fiddly -- either with themselves or with non-consenting victims -- when you're not looking.
Yet again, it makes more sense that nature is as nature is, which makes more sense than saying some things are your imaginary friend's will, and others are the result of our "degenerate" or "fallen" state.>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^spoco2:
He had great delivery, I'll give him that. But things like this, and moreso his interview on WTF, show that he had a fucked up view of women and men's relationships to them. He really had a view of women that they were, at heart, out to get men, out to make us unhappy... he seemed like he was never really going to be comfortable to be in a proper relationship with a woman.
Which is/was sad.

This is an accurate portrayal of the way that men, who see women as means to an end, namely their own sexual gratification, do think. I think it's rather stereotypical of this degenerate culture, actually..

>> ^carrot:

WAIT! Don't we need someone to bitch about how the monkey (sorry...Gibbon) probably hurt its feet and how to torment a creature like that is sick and horrible and you all suck?


Nah, it's pretty obvious it has already done this before. Probably the only fun it has all day.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^jmzero:
I will note that Arnold was right - having nice abs is 5% having nice abs and 95% not having a bunch of fat over them. Get back on the carrots, Zach.

spot on


Forshizzle look at Brad Pitt in Fight Club he's skinny as can be I could put my hands around his waist, and just dance the night away... *stares longingly out the window*

>> ^jmzero:

I will note that Arnold was right - having nice abs is 5% having nice abs and 95% not having a bunch of fat over them. Get back on the carrots, Zach.


spot on

I will note that Arnold was right - having nice abs is 5% having nice abs and 95% not having a bunch of fat over them. Get back on the carrots, Zach.

Moving this video to carrot's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.