naa...i'll have a pepsi

>> ^jonny:

dead


Fixed and thanks.

Slightly less brown colored coke and pepsi?! I might as well start drinking piss!
Then again, it's now safe for me to drink 1000 cans a day! Wohoo!

I'm sure his kindness had nothing to do with her visual beauty.

"Your name is Guss and you will function as an overweight gas station attendant with an addiction to Coca-cola."

"But I like Pepsi."

"Wait. What!? That's not proper protocol, disintegrate his ass."

"But I want to live!!! I want to taste every flavor of Doritos! Please don't..."

"Shut it fatty! *BRAAAAP!"

I really doubt this is movie-related at all; I'm sure it's just going to be a commercial for Pepsi or something. And I'm glad -- there can never be a true sequel to Ferris Bueller's Day Off since John Hughes died. Doing a sequel without Hughes would be like doing a Rushmore sequel without Wes Anderson, or an Annie Hall sequel without Woody Allen.

What is even sadder?

I went back and listened to it again. Right after the guy says "coke" you can hear "it's a pepsi" real low.

I am back to thinking this is subliminal advertising.

Jaded, jaded, jaded, I am.

In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^bareboards2:

Good point!
I concede that I am too jaded for my own good....

It's a sad day.

Although listening to it again, very tiny voice.... "it's a pepsi" follows the coke comment.

I DON'T TRUST CORPORATE AMERICA AND ADVERTISING.

Dang subliminal shit.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Have to disagree. If it was viral im sure he wouldn't have called that Pepsi a coke.

>> ^bareboards2:

Call me cynical.... Pepsi Max in big letters?
I call this viral ad.
Maybe it is just what it purports to be. I doubt it seriously though.
The combination of the internet and corporate America has made me cynical....

Have to disagree. If it was viral there is no way he would have called that Pepsi a Coke.

>> ^bareboards2:

Call me cynical.... Pepsi Max in big letters?
I call this viral ad.
Maybe it is just what it purports to be. I doubt it seriously though.
The combination of the internet and corporate America has made me cynical....

Call me cynical.... Pepsi Max in big letters?

I call this *viral ad.

Maybe it is just what it purports to be. I doubt it seriously though.

The combination of the internet and corporate America has made me cynical....

Giggle!

>> ^hpqp:

...
That argument applies for every permutation of fapped sperm and period-flushed eggs that are lost every day.
...

did anyone else think that that pepsi can looked FUCKING HUGE in her TINY-ASS hands?

>> ^LooiXIV:

IS THAT AN ERLENMEYER FLASK BONG IN THE BACK GROUND?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

That's what I was trying to figure out... like this girl could be any cooler.

>> ^Jinx:

Pretty sure life begins millions of times in my testicles. It ends by the millions at the end of a condom too. Oh ok, just gametes right? Only "half" murder. Well then life begins when sperm and egg cell meet, but as has already been mentioned here that little bundle of cells doesn't always find itself alive for very long. The body has a rather nasty habit of flushing a fertilized egg out, Women commit infanticide by design. Bitches.
But seriously, the question of when life starts seems fairly simple. The question of when that life becomes sacred, when it becomes capable of suffering, of thought and human intelligence...We can have a debate about how far into pregnancy an abortion should be allowed, argue 1 week in one way or the other and it would be a reasonble and I think worthwhile discussion. Unfortunately the anti-abortion camp isn't reasonable. They pitched their tent in the extremes. The implausbility and insanity of their position is clear. Their assertions are emotional rather than logical and they shoudln't be listened too.


Myself I consider life to begin at implantation of the fertilized egg. The frequency of spontaneous abortion from that point on is radically reduced. None of the every sperm is sacred madness. Most importantly, it is the last clearly definable point I can think of prior birth. An arbitrary, x days, weeks or months just feels exactly that, arbitrary. Barring human intervention an implanted fertilized egg will by born, grow old and die. Sure, it still has the chance of dying naturally before birth, but we don't accept the infant mortality rates when prosecuting child murderers so it hardly seems a valid argument to when a fetus is differentiated as a human.

I'm open to being dissuaded on when life begins, but the lamentations over the consequences of any given definition aren't what I consider valid arguments.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^bcglorf:
The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.
And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?
How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.
There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.
The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.

I said nothing about sides, but I dare say neither side has much claim to focusing on presenting a convincing, logical argument. People are either murderers or haters of women and lovers of rapists. Both sides are equally negligent and stubborn in their refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the real underlying question.
You should note you even just did it yourself leaping right over any discussion of when life begins and went straight after people's heart strings over jailing millions of women and even jailing of rape victims.
Stop and have the logical discussion of when a fetus is a human and should be granted full human rights.

No, i didn't skip over anything - you can hardly expect me to discuss all aspects of abortion in a few paragraphs. I stated some of the issues that would need to be handled if the law is changed, i stated my opinion, and criticised the approach of pro-lifers. I think that is a logical thing to do - the law is the law and if they want to change it, it is they who need the convincing argument. That isn't because i'm pro-choice, that's just a fact of life.
I didn't intend tug on any heart strings, hence why i framed my argument without emotive language; it appears matter of fact to me, if you can suggest some appropriate adjustments then i may make them. But why would you rather skip over the discussion of such things? Perhaps that shows your own desire to skip over some issues.
Don't forget that if i am pro-choice, then i will frame an argument for pro-choice. It is not my responsibility to do otherwise.
If i wanted to change marijuana laws (and i do), then i need to provide a convincing argument first (which i can). Then i have to make sure others are listening and focus my energies on those who are not. This seems logical and sensible to me. Do you disagree? If so, how else do you suggest we go about changing established norms? Problems must be identified before they are adressed, no?


My problem is you still have the same frightened attitude as any of the other combatants on either side. The 'heroic' girl in this video is the same as well.

Why is everyone so scared by consideration of the real question, when does life begin?

All of your pro-life arguments apply to the exact moment before the child leaves the womb. Should anybody having a c-section get to choose if the doctor hands them the baby or slits it's throat and tosses it aside? After all, it hadn't been born yet so it's a matter of choice.

The question of when life begins is paramount, and both sides are uncomfortable with it. You haven't shown my you are in any way unique, you've failed in both posts to even touch the notion of when a human life should be granted full rights. One might assume the being pro-life, you feel life begins at birth, but that of course introduces the ugliness mentioned above.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^bcglorf:
The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.
And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?
How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.
There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.
The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.

I said nothing about sides, but I dare say neither side has much claim to focusing on presenting a convincing, logical argument. People are either murderers or haters of women and lovers of rapists. Both sides are equally negligent and stubborn in their refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the real underlying question.
You should note you even just did it yourself leaping right over any discussion of when life begins and went straight after people's heart strings over jailing millions of women and even jailing of rape victims.
Stop and have the logical discussion of when a fetus is a human and should be granted full human rights.


No, i didn't skip over anything - you can hardly expect me to discuss all aspects of abortion in a few paragraphs. I stated some of the issues that would need to be handled if the law is changed, i stated my opinion, and criticised the approach of pro-lifers. I think that is a logical thing to do - the law is the law and if they want to change it, it is they who need the convincing argument. That isn't because i'm pro-choice, that's just a fact of life.

I didn't intend tug on any heart strings, hence why i framed my argument without emotive language; it appears matter of fact to me, if you can suggest some appropriate adjustments then i may make them. But why would you rather skip over the discussion of such things? Perhaps that shows your own desire to skip over some issues.

Don't forget that if i am pro-choice, then i will frame an argument for pro-choice. It is not my responsibility to do otherwise.

If i wanted to change marijuana laws (and i do), then i need to provide a convincing argument first (which i can). Then i have to make sure others are listening and focus my energies on those who are not. This seems logical and sensible to me. Do you disagree? If so, how else do you suggest we go about changing established norms? Problems must be identified before they are adressed, no?