>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Funny you should post this, I just learned that bronyism is not an ironic 4-chan meme in this SomethingAwful article yesterday. It is completely sincere. The horror.... the horror...


Yes. Not only that but there is a large portion of the furry community that has extreme dislike for the bronies. To think, the lowest level of internet subcultures is looking DOWN on bronies makes it all the more sad.

Funny you should post this, I just learned that bronyism is not an ironic 4-chan meme in this SomethingAwful article yesterday. It is completely sincere. The horror.... the horror...

They are Africanized, right? So why aren't they just being exterminated? The guys were being so careful so as not to disturb the hive too much and allow for the barn to be repaired afterward. Why not just fucking nuke them all with sulfuric acid or something? Those aren't normal bees and they don't belong anywhere outside of Africa. Not sure what good they do in Africa either, but they're certainly assholes.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bee, africanized, hive, wall, swarm, remove, removal, fresno, california, barn, pissed' to 'africanized bees, killer bees, hive, wall, swarm, fresno, california, barn, pissed' - edited by xxovercastxx

I'd just burn the entire barn, it's the only way to be sure.

I hate bees...no way I'd get close, even with one of these suits (which, obviously, are not entirely bee proof)

Sweet mother of fuck, that barn belongs to the bees now.

Damn. Some barn-burner this was....

Aw, sweet! Also mentions my old classmate and colleague, Steven Barnes.
Thanks!
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Hello, and a belated happy Canada day :

I liked this one, you might too:

http://videosift.com/video/Hide-and-Seek

Aw, sweet! Also mentions my old classmate and colleague, Steven Barnes.

Yes, and...? Good concept, very poor execution. Played on none of the Amish's distinct traits except the staple horse and buggy. I was expecting maybe, "What are you gonna do about it, huh? Burn down my barn? You'd just have to come back and rebuild it anyway." You know, something.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
You know my feelings on the subject Shiny, but there's one thing I appreciate about this video: his rant about how the rich are not getting into heaven. I've heard all sorts of different interpretations and people trying to "translate out" their own beliefs in Matthew 19:24, but I just can't see it in any other way than: "If you have it, give it all away. You can't take it with you and we certainly aren't taking it into account when you get here."

Far from bashing Christians (and I know I'm ignorant where the bible is concerned), I agree with and support this particular idea. It frustrates me to know end when I hear people try to rationalize their selfish excess.

The idea of the rich rarely being saved is well supported by scripture. First, I think Jesus couldn't have been more clear about it in Matthew 19:23:

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven"

However, I do not believe this is a condemnation against having wealth in general. Rather, I think is a condemnation against those who use their riches for selfish gain and not for the greater good. This interpretation supported by James 5:1-6

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days.

Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.

It is condemning those rich who have lived in luxury and in self-indulgence, who have gained by cheating more righteous people of their just due. It even rises to the level of murder in Gods eyes, perhaps because of the impact of a poor person losing even a few days wages could be fatal.

This is illustrated even more plainly in the Parable of the Rich Fool

13Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

14Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” 15Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

16And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. 17He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

18“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

20“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

21“This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.”

God is condemning greed here, and this is something we can see is nigh universal with the rich. Too much is never enough for many of them. But what this is saying is that it is not money itself, it is the love of money that is the issue:

1 Timothy 6:9-10

But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows

The love of money is a snare and a temptation to people. It is what you can call a false idol, because those who pursue riches cannot serve God:

Matthew 6:24

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.


It comes down to what you love; God or the world, and whatever you love more, your heart will be in that:

Matthew 6:19-21

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also

That's why Jesus posed these two questions:

Matthew 16:25-26

For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Steve Jobs is a good example of this. He had about as much money, power, celebrity and accomplishment as you could desire in this life. Yet, what good did his riches do him when it was his time to go? They couldn't keep him alive, and they couldn't insure his eternal future. In the grand scheme of things, they were nothing but a millstone around his neck.

So yes, I think there is clear evidence that scripture condemns the rich, but only the greedy and self-serving rich. Not those who use their wealth for the greater good and not for themselves.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

Farm story:
When I was growing up, we always kept 30-50 chickens for eggs. You can buy sets of chicks that are supposed to be all pullets/hens (females) but usually a few roosters (males) get mixed in by mistake. One time we bought a set of bantam chickens, which is a small/miniature variety, and happened to get 4-5 roosters mixed in with the hens.
Bantams "make up" for their small size in increased aggressiveness. I (about 6 years old or so at the time) was initially scared of them because they would act a lot like this goose -- charge, jump, and try to show you who's boss. They don't have any real means to actually hurt you; no spurs, beaks aren't sharp, etc. but their behavior can be scary for kids at first.
Then my dad taught me how to handle them: stand your ground, angle out a leg and foot so they charge down your foot/shin first, and let them start to ineffectually attack/spur your foot and leg. When they have a leg on either side of your foot, you just kick/launch them away, or even better aim them into the nearest solid object -- like the wall of the barn. I'd go in to collect eggs, let them attack, and boot the little bastards into the wall.
Chickens aren't exactly known for being very intelligent, but bantams seem to have miniature brains in their miniature bodies as well. Getting booted into a wall never really hurt them, but it would make them dizzy or dazed for a few minutes and give you time to collect the eggs. But the next day, or even just after a few minutes if you stuck around, they'd come back around for round two of chicken football.
One disclaimer: if you're a PETA type, consider that being repeatedly kicked into a wall (yet suffering no long-term ill effects) is perhaps better treatment than the likely alternative of being caged into a 2 foot square, force fed, and ending up on a plate at KFC. Maybe.


Chicken Kicker!

Farm story:

When I was growing up, we always kept 30-50 chickens for eggs. You can buy sets of chicks that are supposed to be all pullets/hens (females) but usually a few roosters (males) get mixed in by mistake. One time we bought a set of bantam chickens, which is a small/miniature variety, and happened to get 4-5 roosters mixed in with the hens.

Bantams "make up" for their small size in increased aggressiveness. I (about 6 years old or so at the time) was initially scared of them because they would act a lot like this goose -- charge, jump, and try to show you who's boss. They don't have any real means to actually hurt you; no spurs, beaks aren't sharp, etc. but their behavior can be scary for kids at first.

Then my dad taught me how to handle them: stand your ground, angle out a leg and foot so they charge down your foot/shin first, and let them start to ineffectually attack/spur your foot and leg. When they have a leg on either side of your foot, you just kick/launch them away, or even better aim them into the nearest solid object -- like the wall of the barn. I'd go in to collect eggs, let them attack, and boot the little bastards into the wall.

Chickens aren't exactly known for being very intelligent, but bantams seem to have miniature brains in their miniature bodies as well. Getting booted into a wall never really hurt them, but it would make them dizzy or dazed for a few minutes and give you time to collect the eggs. But the next day, or even just after a few minutes if you stuck around, they'd come back around for round two of chicken football.

One disclaimer: if you're a PETA type, consider that being repeatedly kicked into a wall (yet suffering no long-term ill effects) is perhaps better treatment than the likely alternative of being caged into a 2 foot square, force fed, and ending up on a plate at KFC. Maybe.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

So did little Karl kill Randall in the book? It would be a great plot point: he fucks up by letting the zombie go and wants to redeem himself for dales death by killing Randall. It also gets the group off the hook from having to make a tough moral dilemma, much like Shane did when he let the zombies out of the barn.


Since you seem to insist on letting yourself be despoiled, I'll tell you:

Karl kills Shane in the book. And pretty early on too. Simply for messing with his dad.

DFT: Read the effing books.