>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Shudders at memories. I hate you MrFrisk.



Why, have you spent some time in the hole?

He explained the "mishap" due to the gun's safety being in the same place as on the holster release (using a Glock he did not have this trouble) but yeah, he basically summed it up as his own fault and posted it as a warning to anyway getting lazy with gun safety

I just fucking posted a comment myself!

"why is this baby dying, while God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?"

Not a hard question. If you look at our ability to grasp concepts, we tend to compare things only in contrasts.

Today is cold--because we know what hot (Or warm) is.

Think of a child born without a nerves to feel pain without even knowing it is doing so. The child will gauge its eyes out if left to itself. You know love because you know pain, happiness because you know sadness, life because you know death.

If I was God, I would do things exactly the same way He supposedly did things. Of course, I don't believe in God, so the point is moot.

And as a last joke, I would burn in hell all the sick Christians and save all the good aethists.

>> ^jmzero:
Pains me to do it - but I am going to agree with ShinyBlurry in that he has a correct conception of how many Christians view the situation and that that view is not internally inconsistent. There are, of course, Christians who view it a bit differently in one way or another, but those differences don't really impact the question we started with here.
In general, the starting point question is "why is this baby dying, while God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?" This is a good question: shouldn't God, being omnipotent, should be able to realize all his goals (including this baby surviving, since he's benevolent) without compromising any other principles or goals?
It depends on what kind of definition you have for "omnipotent". Is it "the ability to make true anything that can be stated?" (ie. He can make 2+2=7). Is it the weaker "he can, without limits, control physical and spiritual reality" (ie. he can make gravity go backwards and make electrons "more wet")?. Is it the weaker "limitless control over the physical configuration of the universe" (ie. he can turn the universe into a pretzel, but gravity will still work the same)? One can make similar distinctions about His omniscience, how it extends into the future, how it interacts with free will, and how it extends into paradox.
It also depends on self or otherwise imposed limits. Does He have bounds in terms of what He can and/or will do? Does He mess with "free will"? Can he create and/or destroy "souls"? Did he create "Satan" or evil or good or law, and what is his relationship with the law?
How you (or an individual Christian) answers the above question dictates, to an extent, how they resolve the question. However, for most Christian groups that I'm familiar with, the presence of evil and bad outcomes in the world is (one way or another) the result of God's unwillingness or inability to limit free will, and the cascade of related mishaps ever since the fall of Adam. The flip side is, for a dead baby like this, that they'll get a good go of it in heaven (or Paradise Earth, or whatever).
The specifics of how this is resolved and stated varies with Christian groups and people, but the overall point is usually pretty similar and, as before, I don't think it's internally inconsistent.
Similarly, the oddity of Jesus (being God) praying to the Father (also God) is resolved in a few different ways (all of which restore consistency in one way or another). Sometimes it is, as sb points out, the idea that though the same in many ways, Jesus was a separate being and was legitimately asking (or sometimes just communicating, with no real desire to be spared). Or you can see it as an instructive, rhetorical thing - demonstrating how normal people are supposed to deal with God (even though Jesus didn't need to communicate or deal in that way). Or there's probably 10 other resolutions that are internally consistent, again depending on exact definitions of God's nature and what not.
All in all, it's natural that Christians are going to have a lot of leeway on something like this. The Bible doesn't spend a lot of time nailing down the properties of God (and it only spends a few chapters literally nailing Him anywhere) - so complaining about it is kind of like complaining about the magic in Lord of the Rings.

Pains me to do it - but I am going to agree with ShinyBlurry in that he has a correct conception of how many Christians view the situation and that that view is not internally inconsistent. There are, of course, Christians who view it a bit differently in one way or another, but those differences don't really impact the question we started with here.

In general, the starting point question is "why is this baby dying, while God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?" This is a good question: shouldn't God, being omnipotent, should be able to realize all his goals (including this baby surviving, since he's benevolent) without compromising any other principles or goals?

It depends on what kind of definition you have for "omnipotent". Is it "the ability to make true anything that can be stated?" (ie. He can make 2+2=7). Is it the weaker "he can, without limits, control physical and spiritual reality" (ie. he can make gravity go backwards and make electrons "more wet")?. Is it the weaker "limitless control over the physical configuration of the universe" (ie. he can turn the universe into a pretzel, but gravity will still work the same)? One can make similar distinctions about His omniscience, how it extends into the future, how it interacts with free will, and how it extends into paradox.

It also depends on self or otherwise imposed limits. Does He have bounds in terms of what He can and/or will do? Does He mess with "free will"? Can he create and/or destroy "souls"? Did he create "Satan" or evil or good or law, and what is his relationship with the law?

How you (or an individual Christian) answers the above question dictates, to an extent, how they resolve the question. However, for most Christian groups that I'm familiar with, the presence of evil and bad outcomes in the world is (one way or another) the result of God's unwillingness or inability to limit free will, and the cascade of related mishaps ever since the fall of Adam. The flip side is, for a dead baby like this, that they'll get a good go of it in heaven (or Paradise Earth, or whatever).

The specifics of how this is resolved and stated varies with Christian groups and people, but the overall point is usually pretty similar and, as before, I don't think it's internally inconsistent.

Similarly, the oddity of Jesus (being God) praying to the Father (also God) is resolved in a few different ways (all of which restore consistency in one way or another). Sometimes it is, as sb points out, the idea that though the same in many ways, Jesus was a separate being and was legitimately asking (or sometimes just communicating, with no real desire to be spared). Or you can see it as an instructive, rhetorical thing - demonstrating how normal people are supposed to deal with God (even though Jesus didn't need to communicate or deal in that way). Or there's probably 10 other resolutions that are internally consistent, again depending on exact definitions of God's nature and what not.

All in all, it's natural that Christians are going to have a lot of leeway on something like this. The Bible doesn't spend a lot of time nailing down the properties of God (and it only spends a few chapters literally nailing Him anywhere) - so complaining about it is kind of like complaining about the magic in Lord of the Rings.

haha, i reloaded it and it's the correct clip. must have been a hulu-related mishap.

The mishap was that he was taking his glass before the queen did. had nothing to do with the music. queen's first to take the glass.

My wife had to explain to me what the mishap was...

Yet another offering of human tragedy and base spectacle-Combing the internet for the best of human mishap, mechanical and structural failure, and near-death mahem....guess if it gets the votes and attention, huh?

Down if I could.

>> ^kymbos:

I was thinking about this. Surely you'd expect fewer 'friendly fire' casualties over time, as you might with 'enemy fire' casualties. If there's the same number of friendly fire deaths with each war, that is a huge failure in itself.


I'd go out on a limb again and say that you spend more time in close proximity with friendlies than you do with the enemy. This disproportionate amount of time spent leads to a higher probability of mishaps occurring that involve friendly forces compared to that of enemy forces.

That's statistics for you. If you choose to omit/include the right ones, you can prove almost any point you'd like.

>> ^raverman:

They should build a safety feature - at least in these rooms with lots of movable dangerous objects.
e.g. something that launches a heavy net from the ceiling to hold everything to the ground.
You can't stop heavy seas, but you can prepare to keep people safe so they aren't flying 20 feet into a table leg.


If you think about it, that idea is really bad.

- the logistics of suspending a net above a very large room - including support pillars (so it'd have to be lots of nets or a huge net that's made around the pillars with holes for the pillars)
- never mind a HEAVY net, and the weight of the net on these sophisticated pieces of "dropping" mechanisms
- you'd have an ugly "heavy" net hanging over a dining room
- which would then drop in a storm trapping furniture AND PEOPLE
- power failure = heavy net falling on people?
- general mishaps with a heavy net suspended above people?
- the cost of getting sued by people getting hit by a heavy net?
- you'd have to have loads of release mechanisms to go at the same time to release said net
- you can't have anything upstanding/on the walls which would catch the net and stop the full release
- you'd have to trigger it whilst very stable otherwise the net would fall incorrectly/warp in the air
- the net would need to be pinioned at various places in the room otherwise things would just slide around under it because there's no tension to keep things held in place even if they got caught

- and if you're referring to the fork lift truck, i'd like to see the net that could stop a fork lift from sliding around a floor which suddenly becomes a wall assuming all the other problems listed were overcome. THAT would be a net hooper and chief brody would have wanted.

Do Limp Bizkit count? They were still big in '01.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^No one ever told these guys that rap-metal died in the 1990s.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Rap-Metal Mishap, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Raaagh:

God imbued his spirit into that axe. cue Pope Benedict XVI wailing out November rain on said guitar


Holy JUSTICE.

*NSFW

(I thought it said mashup. not mishap!)

The sound effects sell the clip.