How would he have benefited from fainting?

I heard that it occasionally caused confusion in Spanish speaking countries... like saying Dan is playing with his Amiga in his room (Grandma faints).

They changed the name of the vic-20 to vc-20 in German speaking countries because the original is rude in German, but kept Amiga as-is.
>> ^ReverendTed:

>> ^renatojj:
Amiga!
A Random Thought Occurs!

If "amigo" is friend, is "Amiga" girlfriend? Did our generation get trolled on that one?

The comedy sound affects are a bit annoying but the clips are good. Hockey is certainly not for the faint of heart.

I'm sure anyone in the military would know, when you are standing at attention for sometimes hours, don't keep your legs locked, shift your weight from time to time and most importantly, if you feel faint at all, go down on one knee so someone can come and get you before you smash your face or head or neighbor. I was only in air cadets but that was drilled into us all the time.

I've been the best man at a couple of weddings, and they warn us to keep shifting from foot to foot, because apparently standing with legs locked for a long time without moving leads to fainting. I noticed in this video that nearly everyone was just standing motionless before fainting; except for the weightlifter, no one was moving around beforehand.

Sorry, I'm just used to seeing comments on basically every one of my videos that is either pure Republican argle bargle (Kenyan Muslim Socialist blew up the debt, so who cares if Romney is a snake who will say or do anything to get elected!), or some backhanded comment that damns Obama with faint praise from more liberal and independent minded people.

I thought your comment was one of the latter. Sorry I jumped all over you for it.

>> ^A10anis:

There are NO contenders of any worth to take on Obama. There, you clear now of my initial meaning? I'm done, JEEZ.

I want to know if issykitty fainted when she watched this

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by luxury_pie.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'pilot fainting dead prank flying fly plane near death experience' to 'pilot, fainting, dead, prank, flying, plane, near death experience' - edited by luxury_pie

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/pilot-pretends-to-faint

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by kulpims. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

From their discussion, it seems like he was planning to only remove portions that he no longer found aesthetically pleasing. The skull, inverted pentagram, and iron cross seemed to be obvious iconography that one might "outgrow". I'm not sure what was removed on the upper right portion on the woman's face. My guess is that he still enjoys the body art in general, but wanted to clean it up a bit into something that better reflects his current taste.

The doctor (technician?) mentioned about 3 more treatments for the shading, which seems rather short to me. I've had friends and relatives that have needed 10+ treatments and still have faint shading. Since she also mentioned covering up, I'm assuming he intends to get further work done to replace what was removed, and therefore doesn't need to completely obliterate the underlying shading.

OMG!!! Did I just faint?

Per my description, I will add this :

It is now weather that I longed for, it is 20 degrees Celsius at 7 pm in the evening. It is just a long shot that is the eclectic weather I get in my location, but this really speaks to those that have goals.

I had a faint hope, a glimmer in the darkness that the sun will shine more than 9 hours a day and give heat that fills my room with an intoxicating musk.

I now have the heat, the sun and the happiness of a full sunny day when it comes.


Fuck

Yea.

I hate winter.

Rubbish. It's stuff like that that makes religious people dislike atheists.

I'm not an atheist--but neither am I Christian. Nonetheless, I think it's worth pointing out some serious flaws in the argument here.

First, the literal interpretation of the Bible has never really been primary. Actually, this is almost universally the case for sacred writings. The Greek myths were to be understood as metaphor, and the Koran is considered by many Muslims to be a repository of spiritual truths which are not necessarily on the surface, and which require study to glean from the text.

Interpreting the Bible as non-literal--as metaphorical, analogical, etc.--goes back more than 2000 years. One of the first writers on the Old Testament, the Jewish scholar Philo, wrote a treatise that regarded the sacred books as almost entirely non-literal. He viewed it as encoded with revelations about Platonic truths, the structure of the spiritual world, and not necessarily a history book.

This viewpoint was carried through to the Christian period. The Church Father Origen famously interpreted the book non-literally. The 4th century Church Father St. Augustine even wrote a tract called "On the literal interpretation of Genesis," in which he excoriated the Creationists of the day, who believed the world to be flat and the sky to be a literal blue dome--and who believed, contrary to all observation, that the world was only a few thousand years old, when anyone with eyes could tell that it was clearly much older. Augustine cautioned the Christians against such interpretations because they were clearly wrong, and because they made Christians look like idiots.

Augustine instead proffered the interpretation that the world had been made all at once, in one instant. The "days" referred to in Genesis he instead took as referring to the distinct logical elements of the instantaneous act of Creation. Incidentally, Augustine claimed that this was, indeed, a "literal" interpretation--the term "literal" meant something very different in those days.

Of course, the ancients also viewed the world in a very different way. In those days, it made perfect sense to see an actual, physical object as also metaphorical or analogical in some way. A temple or a statue of a god could be, in a very real way, the instantiation of the god in the physical world. According to Aristotle, every object had its natural goal, its "telos." An object fell because it was its "telos" to be at its natural resting point on the ground. And so on. There was no such thing as dead matter, devoid of an intimate relationship to mind or spirit, in the view of the ancients.

It was not until the rise of the scientific worldview in the 17th and 18th centuries that the literal interpretation of the Bible became popular. Matter came to be viewed in Cartesian or corpuscularian terms, as pure mathematical extension in space, entirely passive unless moved from the outside. In Cartesian terms, things like the "telos" were unthinkable for physical objects.

Seeing the popularity and utility of this new viewpoint, the Protestant preachers began devising literalist interpretations of the Bible. Their goal was to vindicate the Bible in scientific terms. Their effort might have been laudable, but it became occasionally silly. Some theologians argued that Jesus hadn't actually died on the cross--he had just fainted, and then woke up in the tomb later and walked out.

Nonetheless, their efforts were genuinely honest and took the newest and best science to heart as they worked on their interpretations. Some of these theologians were scientist in their own right, making important contributions to biology and geology. However, as time went on, their efforts proved ultimately futile, leading the best theologians to gradually abandon the literalist approach the Bible.

Unfortunately, there are still a number of Christians who cling to 19th century literalist approach. So-called "creation science" comes out of this tradition, for instance. It should be remembered, though, that these Christians are not only rejecting genuine science--they are also rejecting centuries-old traditions within their own religion.