Your video, The love of action sports runs deep in this one, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I do also think it's effing awesome-There's after-market fits for other guitars beside a Gibson, unless you just want a Les Paul or SG (personally, love the action and tone and fretboard on a classic SG because it's wide and smooth all the way up the neck, and because Zappa played hardly anything else).

If you play a lot though and on an axe you know, and I tend to tune a lot between hammerins', you get really fast at getting the thing back in tune becasue you sense the one or two strings that need attention and are always tuning them back between bending the hell out of em.

I DO dig these for the variety of tunings over the perfect pitchitude aspect of it, especially for a go-to rock guitar. It's got like what, five standard tunings plugged-in??

Modern interpretation of the "Turn the other cheek also" bit and the rest of the "sermon on the mount" ignore cultural context. There's tons of commentary about it if you Google it. Jesus was teaching passive resistance. Not that he necessarily existed at all.

Anyway, he goes on whith the old trope about aksing contrition allowing wrong-doers to do more wrong without consequence. The point of contrition is that if you have to openly, verbally acknowledge your sins, you become more aware of bad things you do, and are less likely to do them again. Raised Catholic myself, until I left the church, I avoided doing bad things because then I'd have to confess them. People who delight in others' suffering aren't the type to get all contrite about it. It's a strawman argument. He equates, "cleansing of unrighteousness" with forgiveness, though they're not the same thing. Unrighteousness is the defect that causes you to do bad things. If you sincerely believe you have been cleased of it, then you will have to choose to act against your god to reoffend. It's a pretty smart system. He also assumed that forgiveness also wipes away contrition. It doesn't. It just clears your heavenly ledger of sins that will be counted against you when you die.

And he really goes wrong with, "Love your neighbour as yourself." He's not commanding people to have loving feelings towards their neighbour or themselves. That's impossible to comply with. It's not love as a feeling, it's love as action. He's commanding people to treat everyone well rather than to harbour grudges and be a bitch, which only leads to escalation. If everyone treated everyone else decently, the world would be a much more comfortable place to live, and we'd all prosper more easily.

Further, it means if someone does something bad, and you show them love, it's more likely to change them in a good way. If you show them hate and contempt and "take pleasure in their suffering", it's just going to make them a worse person, and someone who has already shown a tendancy to do bad things is exactly the wrong person to make worse. You can love someone while protecting yourself. It's way, way out of the Western concept, but it's common in other places to punnish someone, even severely, with love.

The worst is the selective interpretation of "...as yourself." This means "Love your neighbour as well as yourself." It's an extention of your own love to you. When you love yourself, you'll treat yourself better, take care of yoruself more, show yourself more understanding. The result will be your having more love to share with others. I'm totally down with that.

So, you and I are talking about confirmation bias in another thread. Do you think that as an anti-religious person in general, you feel satisfaction when you are shown fault in religious teachings? Does it satisfy you to the point where you might not really analyse what's being said? Looks to me that's what's happened here. You were looking for someone to agree with you, and someone slamming Jesus' main teachings hit the sweet spot. I dislike religions too, and enjoy people like Hitch and Tyson, and to a lesser degree Dawkins doing their thing, but this is really weak soup.

>> ^hpqp:

Quote mine: fallacy of quoting out of context.
Care to illustrate how his citation of Bible verses is such?
As for recycling other people's arguments, that's pretty much what everyone does, some with more eloquence than others of course.
>> ^messenger:
He quotemines the bible and recycles others' arguments only to demonstrate that Jesus wasn't a very good god.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Rhodes College, Tennessee' to 'dan savage, Rhodes College, Tennessee, love in action, ken hutcherson' - edited by xxovercastxx

I love that you totally missed HIS sarcasm...

>> ^siaiaiaaaaaa:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^burdturgler:
So how many racist comments should it take then?
"Finaly a way to rid the world of black people ,"
"well I am shocked everyone knows gays are the only group of people worse than black people."
"baist on my biast view on the world black people shouldent vote"

That's uh...that's enough for me. Fuckin' nuke 'im

i mean. you moron.
in the last example he even makes his pisstake OBVIOUS by saying 'based on my biased view'
did that not occur or even remotely hint to you that he worded in that way to take the piss out of people who actually ARE racist/biggots.
What you've done is shown a serious lack of understanding of subtle humour or pisstaking.
lets deal with the first two, less obvious examples. Key words here are 'well i am shocked, everyone knows.....'
HEARD OF SARCASM??????
'Finally a way to rid...' Note use of the word, finally, at the beginning of the sentence, suggesting he's saying it in a pithy or flippant manner, i.e. whatever he was referring to obviously wasn't a good way to rid the world of black people, if there was such a method, and if there was, it'd be pointless because why would you want to rid the world of black people.
for example, mum: 'oh son you'd be happy when im dead and gone, wouldn't you! why do you give me all this grief?'
me: 'yeh, thats right, when you die i'll be like 'Finally, you're dead, i can do what i want now!'
(storm off upstairs into room)
you should be nuked for ... not. understanding. things. or simple concepts in language. granted you can't tell his tone because you're not listening to audio of him speaking, but i and probably many others can spot the subtle differences which make these views quite obviously not serious, when reading text - and infact its doing the complete opposite - his comments are taking the piss out of people who actually DO have racist views, mocking them by saying what they might say, with subtle use of sarcasm.

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^burdturgler:
So how many racist comments should it take then?
"Finaly a way to rid the world of black people ,"
"well I am shocked everyone knows gays are the only group of people worse than black people."
"baist on my biast view on the world black people shouldent vote"

That's uh...that's enough for me. Fuckin' nuke 'im


i mean. you moron.
in the last example he even makes his pisstake OBVIOUS by saying 'based on my biased view'

did that not occur or even remotely hint to you that he worded in that way to take the piss out of people who actually ARE racist/biggots.
What you've done is shown a serious lack of understanding of subtle humour or pisstaking.

lets deal with the first two, less obvious examples. Key words here are 'well i am shocked, everyone knows.....'
HEARD OF SARCASM??????

'Finally a way to rid...' Note use of the word, finally, at the beginning of the sentence, suggesting he's saying it in a pithy or flippant manner, i.e. whatever he was referring to obviously wasn't a good way to rid the world of black people, if there was such a method, and if there was, it'd be pointless because why would you want to rid the world of black people.
for example, mum: 'oh son you'd be happy when im dead and gone, wouldn't you! why do you give me all this grief?'
me: 'yeh, thats right, when you die i'll be like 'Finally, you're dead, i can do what i want now!'
(storm off upstairs into room)

you should be nuked for ... not. understanding. things. or simple concepts in language. granted you can't tell his tone because you're not listening to audio of him speaking, but i and probably many others can spot the subtle differences which make these views quite obviously not serious, when reading text - and infact its doing the complete opposite - his comments are taking the piss out of people who actually DO have racist views, mocking them by saying what they might say, with subtle use of sarcasm.

>> ^burdturgler:
So how many racist comments should it take then?
"Finaly a way to rid the world of black people ,"
"well I am shocked everyone knows gays are the only group of people worse than black people."
"baist on my biast view on the world black people shouldent vote"

That's uh...that's enough for me. Fuckin' nuke 'im

So how many racist comments should it take then?

"Finaly a way to rid the world of black people ,"
"well I am shocked everyone knows gays are the only group of people worse than black people."
"baist on my biast view on the world black people shouldent vote"

Aussie here.

I used to love American action films (still do), my dad let me watch them but felt the need to balance me out with little historical tidbits. I vaugely remember getting told one about the US abandoning some freedom fighters while I was watching Rambo. I cant remember the details, but they were coaxed into rising up against their masters with the promise of US support which was withdrawn. They were pleading for help from the radio station as tanks burst through the walls. Pretty hard to reconcile that with what hollywood told me

In 1999 I was an avid Counter-strike player/mapper/modder and got to know allot of the boys on the forums quite well. The NRA came out with an ad which included a sound bite of some old tosser in Australia somewhere who had confronted a burglar.
"If I had a gun I would of shot im" - I laughed at how obviously misrepresentitive it was of Aussies and forgot about it. But in the forums all the gamers had rallied behind the ad. I posted a simple and clear message saying Australians almost all are anti-(personal) firearms. Well I got flamed like I have never experienced. People were telling me I was wrong, telling ME how Australians felt about gun control. All these regular guys I knew, suddenly turned utterly hardline. It was so weird and scary.

And then there is the religion thing: those stats about US views on evolution etc are scary.

But really, all these things are just dressing for the bigger worry, the extreme inward looking nature of huge, politically aligned swathes of the US population that give power to imperialistic policy. Thats it really. The French might get precious about the battle between French and American culture - but I think that is really a side issue.

i love the action on that, wonder if it's a special type of balloon