I fail to see how the depiction of the luna dance is offensive to Hawaiians. I wonder if she would be offended by my DVD copy of Lilo & Stitch? Or my wife's Lilo bobblehead.

Some history: Protestants banned hula in the 19th century, so the celebration of this traditional dance seems to me to be empowering versus the censorship of what the Protestants called "heathen". Sure, the introduction of the Portuguese ukulele and other Western aesthetics changed the art form, but it's practiced in both modern and traditional forms today.

You also can't simply demonize the cross-pollination of cultures, because cultural values are always changing. Hawaiian and Polynesian culture went through many changes and forms long before anyone from the West showed up on their shores. The luau itself is partly symbolic of women's rights (as well as lower class rights) in Hawaiian culture, as before the luau, women were not allowed to eat the same food as men, and commoners could not eat with royalty or eat their royal Hawaiian food.

This change didn't happen until the 1800s, so it's likely that this level of equality within the Hawaiian culture is due in part to European contact, including the the King who himself became a Christian -- and yet also encouraged the luna dance.

When cultures make contact with each other, they become entangled. They influenced us and we influenced them -- and they're Americans now so deal with it. I once had pictures of Italian Americans on my wall (Godfather/Scarface posters) and my grandma has a Jew on her crucifix. Neither of us are Italian or Jewish. LOL

Lies begin when a non-omnipotent consciousness forms and that consciousness seeks, let's say, truth, yet finds only half truths that require mental gymnastics in order to believe. Sand exists. How? I don't know. God? It's only natural to invent things concept to fill in the gaps.

A civilization of people formed out of collective half truths has unfulfillable expectations in this world which creates the security breach which breeds more lies. Thus it becomes state authority creating lies to appease those that their ancestors lied to since the beginning of our time. Brother kills brother. How did your brother die? A member of the opposing tribe did it! Opposing tribe dies. Known "truth" then becomes fact and history remembers that a violent tribe of brother-killers was sacked.

Truth will ALWAYS be an illusion to mortal beings of limited perspective. Always. Even if you perceptively died and met God in Heaven, it still remains suspect that your experience could be a lie guided by carefully controlled stimuli. If there's a modicum of truth that we have observed with science, it's only truth within the system of our understanding of the universe, therefore not Truth.

Yes, science allows us to observe and our observations have allowed us to record "laws" of the universe, but even someone like Richard Feynman admits to making shit up and then, Presto! it makes the equation make sense. Lies. No matter how small, they can fill in the gaps just enough to create perceived truth. But that's mechanical truth. A mechanism just needs to work or not work. It doesn't matter if you did everything right using precise truth.

So you may think: If life is an illusion, then what about all of the scientific experiments which have allowed us to create civilization as we know it? Well, every game, or sandbox, follows rules, so experiments within that world can be valid in that world according to the laws that govern it, but it doesn't mean those laws are the Truth.

If the world we are in was akin to something like Minecraft, observation would indicate that the world is functional and that there are observations which can be repeated over and over again with the same or similar results, leading to the creation of technology. But what about the concept of a .JAR or .DLL? Checksum? How about a network? If we only know the observed laws of the current server we have access to observe, how do we record the Truth? Black box observation and nothing more. My kingdom for a scientist that can perform unit testing. A string theory unit tester might be a good start.

Anyway, just rambling for communal sanity, as always. Not all of us have picked a side, let alone a position of understanding in the universe to cling to like a crucifix or a meme.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^jbaber:
A Pizza deliveryman whose wife just got over cancer is put in the awkward position of having to sue his church for having his leg chopped off and you guys are laughing?
Aren't you supposed to proving you can be moral without religion?
I really feel bad for this guy. It's not a slip-and-fall payout from Piggly-Wiggly: he lost a leg which may cost him his extremely low pay job. But because it happened at a shrine he regularly attends, it's funny? Try to be a little less monstrous, internet.

I wonder if a god had come down to him and said "lose your leg and I'll cure your wife", if he would have gone through with it? Would he have sued his god?
Good thing the statue is miraculous when he wants it to be, and a flawed creation of man for the purposes of his lawsuit, right?


If a god had made the offer "lose your leg and I'll cure your wife" I'm sure he would have taken it. Of course since it's a trade there would be no reason to sue.

The lawyer says his client believed it was his devotion to the cross (i.e. consistently praying at the cross) that cured his wife - not the cross itself. Since he doesn't directly say that he thinks the statue itself is miraculous (i.e. the statue performed the miracle), I think it is probable that it's what the statue represents (Jesus) that he was praying too and which he believed performed the miracle.

>> ^nanrod:

What does morality have to do with recognizing the irony and hypocrisy of the situation.


Simple recognition of the "irony and hypocrisy" does not need to include derision of the person in question.

>> ^jbaber:

A Pizza deliveryman whose wife just got over cancer is put in the awkward position of having to sue his church for having his leg chopped off and you guys are laughing?
Aren't you supposed to proving you can be moral without religion?
I really feel bad for this guy. It's not a slip-and-fall payout from Piggly-Wiggly: he lost a leg which may cost him his extremely low pay job. But because it happened at a shrine he regularly attends, it's funny? Try to be a little less monstrous, internet.


I wonder if a god had come down to him and said "lose your leg and I'll cure your wife", if he would have gone through with it? Would he have sued his god?

Good thing the statue is miraculous when he wants it to be, and a flawed creation of man for the purposes of his lawsuit, right?

>> ^Grimm:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/>> ^Stormsinger:
I think he should be praying to the crucifix to restore his leg.


That site is precisely what I was thinking about when I posted.

It's such a catchy question, that cuts right to the heart of things. Why does God hate amputees?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/>> ^Stormsinger:

I think he should be praying to the crucifix to restore his leg.

>> ^bareboards2:

promote the sweet irony. Right, @Grimm?


Praise BB, thank you Lord!

I think he should be praying to the crucifix to restore his leg.

...and in the likely event he didn't say it, thank you doctors for saving this guy's wife. >> ^Murgy:

Personally, I'd contribute his wife's survival to doctors and scientists, though I suppose that wouldn't have made a very good story. But if the big concrete icon really is what floats your boat, worship away!

what a little piece of shit. Stupid enough to believe a fucking inanimate object saved his wife from cancer, and not doctors and modern medicine, and also a greedy little pig who then is sane enough to recognize the crucifix which saved his wife was somehow not sacred enough not to be a lawsuit.

>> ^kymbos:

For me it was the caesarean alien abortion that took 30 seconds, ended with some metal staples following wihch she just hops up and walks off.
Pretty sure abdominal muscles don't work that way...


And then she's jumping around and abseiling!

I think the most insulting thing was this supposed deep theme of creation and religion. Which basically amounts to a few scenes with Shaw fingering her crucifix. Really that's it.

If you want that sort of sci-fi where they actually spend time on such notions then 2001, Contact or similar are much better.

I'd really like to see a sci-fi film consistent in its own universe so when you inevitably have to suspend belief it's easy to do so.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'kevin smith, george carlin, jesus, inri, crucifix, plenary, indulgence, catholicism, wow' to 'kevin smith, george carlin, jesus, inri, crucifix, plenary, indulgence, catholicism wow' - edited by xxovercastxx

A: wearing a hoodie
B: wearing an undershirt thingy.

Round 1
0:00-0:10 - B tries several 1-2 combinations, but poor footwork and punching technique result in misses.
0:10-0:18 - A shows good distance control, but poor footwork leaves him backed against the door. Slipping and circling to his right would have been a better option.
0:18-0:27 - A and B both try to counter straight/wobbly right hands with their own right hands. Poor technique in general displayed by both. Establishing a stiff jab would have been a better option for both.
0:27-0:35 - Unable to land any strikes, both A and B separate and regroup. End of Round 1. 10-9 B for driveway control and generalship.
0:36-1:04 - Between rounds we get some back story to the confrontation which involves theft of illicit property. We also learn of A's prefight illness, and B's lack of compassion.

Round 2
1:03-1:08 - Clearly motivated, A comes out swinging, with B looking to counterstrike. B is smart to allow A to close distance rather than try to chase him down like in round 1.
1:08-1:13 - Drawing A in, B is able to counter a lunging right hand with a right hand of his own. Poor footwork by A combined with a quick followup shot by B leads to a knockdown.
1:13-1:18 - B tries to land punches before establishing a solid top position. A is able to sweep B with a quick roll. B should have concentrated on establishing his base first. 'Position before submission' is a better idea. A ends up securing side position.
1:18-1:35 - A shows excellent patience, as B expends too much energy attempting strikes from the inferior position. An armbar is available at 1:22, but A elects not to attempt it. The sequence ends with A executing a knee-over pass to full mount.
1:35-2:15 - A maintains mount, but B's lack of grappling is matched only by A's lack of conditioning. B removes A's hoodie. Multiple armbars are available, but A does not capitalize.
2:16-2:20 - B is able to execute a bump-and-roll (upa) sweep, landing in A's guard. A does well to control B's posture. An introductory lesson at their local Brazilian jiu jitsu school would have been a good option for both A and B.
2:20-3:07 - B tries landing strikes from the guard, but poor posture makes them ineffectual. A goes with an open guard, but a total lack of hip movement makes submissions unlikely. The sequence ends with an illegal groin strike.
3:07-4:12 - Too much talking. I have a feeling they may not be wearing the required mouth guards. At 3:27 a dog barks.
4:12-4:25 - A attempts an omoplata, but forgets to hook B's arm. This general lack of control allows B to strike A. A goes to turtle position.
4:25-4:37 - B attempts to take A's back, but does not secure the over/under or the hooks. As A stands up, B goes for an elevated (flying?) crucifix, but B counters it by dumping A on his head.
4:37-4:55 - With B on his back and A standing, A attempts multiple torino passes, but is unable to get to side position.
4:55-5:19 - Round 2 ends, but A shows a lack of sportsmanship by threatening to spit on B. 10-9 A.
Result: 19-19 Draw.

Note: I suspect this may not have been a sanctioned Amateur MMA event.

TL;DR: At 3:27 a dog barks.