http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxAJqvslV7M
I'll just leave this here.
(TROLOLOLOLOL)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1/1723562_823015054390590_1571162004_n.jpg)Um... this is about videos.
Um... this is about videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKU6fKhYpYw
This video is hilarious. And seeing the background images makes me want to order a pizza and throw it in the garbage right now. lol! Civilizations rise and fall. Let the ones that are too weak to die die.
My wife and I don't have a child. You know why? Because we can't afford one right now. Maybe people on the other side of the world should exercise the same restraint.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8GfWJKyPVc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8GfWJKyPVc
is that serious or a parody? I honestly can't tell. I mean, it comes across as being seious but at the same time it's really fucking stupid.
Oh man, I loved the earlier videos where the cartoon voice actors did Episode 4.
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R4X7OeL3Mc
There are comments claiming that the thing at 0:35 or so was framed but I haven't found any proof for that. Besides, Prince Harry seems like a cool guy and framing something like that does not seem to be in his or the royal family's style.
Oh man, I loved the earlier videos where the cartoon voice actors did Episode 4.
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R4X7OeL3Mc
There are comments claiming that the thing at 0:35 or so was framed but I haven't found any proof for that. Besides, Prince Harry seems like a cool guy and framing something like that does not seem to be in his or the royal family's style.
Fixed.Oh man, I loved the earlier videos where the cartoon voice actors did Episode 4.
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R4X7OeL3Mc
There are comments claiming that the thing at 0:35 or so was framed but I haven't found any proof for that. Besides, Prince Harry seems like a cool guy and framing something like that does not seem to be in his or the royal family's style.
I prefer this version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_uxR4RZbxA
Fixed.Oh man, I loved the earlier videos where the cartoon voice actors did Episode 4.
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R4X7OeL3Mc
There are comments claiming that the thing at 0:35 or so was framed but I haven't found any proof for that. Besides, Prince Harry seems like a cool guy and framing something like that does not seem to be in his or the royal family's style.
I prefer this version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_uxR4RZbxA
This seemed appropriate as it's World Cup time. Also, if anyone's familiar with the world of UK football and its coverage, this is spot on.Try using the YouTube icon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusyO7J2inM
Sorry, I can't get the video to embed for some reason.
This seemed appropriate as it's World Cup time. Also, if anyone's familiar with the world of UK football and its coverage, this is spot on.Try using the YouTube icon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusyO7J2inM
Sorry, I can't get the video to embed for some reason.
Oh. Well, you have to remove the s at the end of the http.This seemed appropriate as it's World Cup time. Also, if anyone's familiar with the world of UK football and its coverage, this is spot on.Try using the YouTube icon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusyO7J2inM
Sorry, I can't get the video to embed for some reason.
I did (contrary to popular opinion I'm not actually borderline mentally retarded and I've embeded youtube videos on this site before I do know how to do it), I just kept getting "invalid youtube link" where the video should be.
See:
#Invalid YouTube Link#
So many of you will probably find this very offensive. You have been warned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHQWlFtSptU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHQWlFtSptU)
(I am specifically not embedding the video since that, for me at least, makes pages load ridiculously slowly.)
(https://33.media.tumblr.com/ac60d5a0671784b23f04e28ddeb396ba/tumblr_nbhxqo5SzH1qb5gkjo1_500.png)
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/a707ad3c009bd67bdab905d0759da4c4/tumblr_nbhxqo5SzH1qb5gkjo2_500.png)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo45o69HaKIFTFY
The text is one of my favourite quotes from Terry Pratchett's books and the images from one of the best scenes in Sherlock. Cool.(click to show/hide)
Hmm... Apparently I did.The text is one of my favourite quotes from Terry Pratchett's books and the images from one of the best scenes in Sherlock. Cool.(click to show/hide)
I think you put this in the wrong thread.
Never change Italy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOQBpCzUyuk
I always assumed that was how all products were marketed in America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTqOnCQ4Qy4
.44 does more damage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QWL5wM73V0
I didn't know there was pirate rap. This is actually kinda cute.
There's a difference between "scrutiny," and "LOL I don't believe this so you're a delusional idiot for believing in it!!1!!!one!!!" A fucking HUGE difference.
One can be atheistic without being an anti-theist.
Ah, the WORST KIND OF ATHEIST EVER. I will never understand the idea of "let's all be horrible dicks to people who believe X."
There's a difference between "scrutiny," and "LOL I don't believe this so you're a delusional idiot for believing in it!!1!!!one!!!" A fucking HUGE difference.
One can be atheistic without being an anti-theist.
Do you even know what anti-theist means? Does the behavior of a bunch of teenagers on a subreddit matter that much to your delicate sensibilities?
It's astonishing that religious people get offended this easily while being utterly oblivious to the fact that they are much bigger assholes to the nonreligious.
Given the social expectation we have to validate (or "respect") nonsensical beliefs just because they're religious, I for one wholeheartedly support ripping into it. It's a stupid double standard, really. If someone believes in ghosts or bigfoot, you're not expected to "respect their beliefs". Quite the opposite, really. But if they believe in God, suddenly we're expected to walk on eggshells. I more than approve of bucking that nonsensical trend.
False equivalence. God is metaphysical, unlike Bigfoot or ghosts.That is irrelevant. It's still a case of believing in something in spite of a lack of evidence. Without evidence, it's all equally bullshit, "metaphysical" or not.
Speaking of ghosts, there are a surprising number of atheists who believe in them. How that works, I have no clue.Atheism is just no belief in gods. Someone can believe in woo and still qualify as atheist, as long as the woo they believe in isn't god(s).
Moreover, do you really think being pointlessly dickish to religious people is going to make atheism more popular?No, but that's what what I'm going for. I'm more interested in removing the expectation that everyone else has to validate their beliefs.
False equivalence. God is metaphysical, unlike Bigfoot or ghosts.That is irrelevant. It's still a case of believing in something in spite of a lack of evidence. Without evidence, it's all equally bullshit, "metaphysical" or not.
Speaking of ghosts, there are a surprising number of atheists who believe in them. How that works, I have no clue.Atheism is just no belief in gods. Someone can believe in woo and still qualify as atheist, as long as the woo they believe in isn't god(s).
Moreover, do you really think being pointlessly dickish to religious people is going to make atheism more popular?No, but that's what what I'm going for. I'm more interested in removing the expectation that everyone else has to validate their beliefs.
Come back when you have actual evidence against God's existence. You say God's not real, now back it up.Seriously? Come on now, even you should know better. Burden of proof is on the positive claim. If you say something does exist, it's up to you to prove it, not up to everyone else to disprove it. This is extremely basic logic, here.
In other words, atheists aren't inherently more rational. I'll remember that for later.More or less correct. However, atheism itself is indeed inherently more rational than theism. Just because people have ample opportunities outside of theism to believe in nonsense doesn't change this. To suggest otherwise is a textbook ad hom.
Fine. You can question my beliefs all you want. But implying that I'm somehow inferior simply for believing in God is another matter entirely.Would you say that willfully believing in nonsense makes you inferiour? Because if so, that's really not my problem.
Come back when you have actual evidence against God's existence. You say God's not real, now back it up.Seriously? Come on now, even you should know better. Burden of proof is on the positive claim. If you say something does exist, it's up to you to prove it, not up to everyone else to disprove it. This is extremely basic logic, here.
In other words, atheists aren't inherently more rational. I'll remember that for later.More or less correct. However, atheism itself is indeed inherently more rational than theism. Just because people have ample opportunities outside of theism to believe in nonsense doesn't change this. To suggest otherwise is a textbook ad hom.
Fine. You can question my beliefs all you want. But implying that I'm somehow inferior simply for believing in God is another matter entirely.Would you say that willfully believing in nonsense makes you inferiour? Because if so, that's really not my problem.
Nothing was said about God's existence until you brought it up. A negative claim is still a claim.I said there's no evidence for god's existence, and therefore believing in it is nonsense. That's how it works. When it comes to assessing whether or not something exists, you don't need negative proof, you just need a lack of positive proof. It's why we don't take the idea of a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn, or invisible pink unicorns running around seriously. The fact that god somehow deserves special privilege in your book in that in this one specific case, it's suddenly up to nonbelievers to prove that it's irrational and not the other way around is exactly the kind of bullshit that I mentioned in my earlier post.
"Atheism is inherently more rational."Irrelevant.
And you wonder why atheists are stereotyped as smug and condescending.
Fact is, plenty of rational people are theists, and plenty of irrational people are atheists. Neither side can seriously claim superiority when it comes to rationality.I said atheism, as in the idea itself, is more rational than theism, not that an individual being atheist is necessarily proof that they're a rational person. Of course, whether individual atheists are overall rational people is irrelevant to that point, and to say otherwise is a textbook ad hom. It's on the same level as people who say "vegetarianism is bad because Hitler was a vegetarian".
Furthermore, not everybody is an atheist for rational reasons. There are many, many people who become atheists because of emotional reasons, because of some ideology, or just because religion doesn't speak to them.
Yet again, we see you making a claim without any evidence to back it up. Like it or not, saying religion is nonsense is a claim. You're the one making the claims here, so you're the one who has to back them up.Nope. "God exists" is not the default. Who mentions it first is irrelevant.
Nothing was said about God's existence until you brought it up. A negative claim is still a claim.I said there's no evidence for god's existence, and therefore believing in it is nonsense. That's how it works. When it comes to assessing whether or not something exists, you don't need negative proof, you just need a lack of positive proof. It's why we don't take the idea of a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn, or invisible pink unicorns running around seriously. The fact that god somehow deserves special privilege in your book in that in this one specific case, it's suddenly up to nonbelievers to prove that it's irrational and not the other way around is exactly the kind of bullshit that I mentioned in my earlier post.
Really now, by your logic, I could claim that I am King of the Space Fairies, a race of wizard goblins who live on Mars, and as long as you bring up how fucking stupid that is first, then suddenly magical space wizards is the default and it's now up to you to disprove it, rather than on me to prove it.
Fact is, plenty of rational people are theists, and plenty of irrational people are atheists. Neither side can seriously claim superiority when it comes to rationality.I said atheism, as in the idea itself, is more rational than theism, not that an individual being atheist is necessarily proof that they're a rational person. Of course, whether individual atheists are overall rational people is irrelevant to that point, and to say otherwise is a textbook ad hom. It's on the same level as people who say "vegetarianism is bad because Hitler was a vegetarian".
Furthermore, not everybody is an atheist for rational reasons. There are many, many people who become atheists because of emotional reasons, because of some ideology, or just because religion doesn't speak to them.
That said, though, theism is, at the very least, strong evidence that someone is not rational. In much the same way as your example of an atheist who believes in ghosts or a non-theistic religion.
Yet again, we see you making a claim without any evidence to back it up. Like it or not, saying religion is nonsense is a claim. You're the one making the claims here, so you're the one who has to back them up.Nope. "God exists" is not the default. Who mentions it first is irrelevant.
Nothing was said about God's existence until you brought it up. A negative claim is still a claim.I said there's no evidence for god's existence, and therefore believing in it is nonsense. That's how it works. When it comes to assessing whether or not something exists, you don't need negative proof, you just need a lack of positive proof. It's why we don't take the idea of a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn, or invisible pink unicorns running around seriously. The fact that god somehow deserves special privilege in your book in that in this one specific case, it's suddenly up to nonbelievers to prove that it's irrational and not the other way around is exactly the kind of bullshit that I mentioned in my earlier post.
Really now, by your logic, I could claim that I am King of the Space Fairies, a race of wizard goblins who live on Mars, and as long as you bring up how fucking stupid that is first, then suddenly magical space wizards is the default and it's now up to you to disprove it, rather than on me to prove it.
The difference is that I have actual evidence that you are not, in fact, King of the Space Fairies.
Fact is, plenty of rational people are theists, and plenty of irrational people are atheists. Neither side can seriously claim superiority when it comes to rationality.I said atheism, as in the idea itself, is more rational than theism, not that an individual being atheist is necessarily proof that they're a rational person. Of course, whether individual atheists are overall rational people is irrelevant to that point, and to say otherwise is a textbook ad hom. It's on the same level as people who say "vegetarianism is bad because Hitler was a vegetarian".
Furthermore, not everybody is an atheist for rational reasons. There are many, many people who become atheists because of emotional reasons, because of some ideology, or just because religion doesn't speak to them.
That said, though, theism is, at the very least, strong evidence that someone is not rational. In much the same way as your example of an atheist who believes in ghosts or a non-theistic religion.
Okay, so you're a bigot. You might as well claim that bisexuality is strong evidence that somebody's a pervert. Moreover, dismissing literally billions of people as "irrational" simply because of their faith is itself irrational.
Furthermore, it's not ad hominem to question whether atheism is inherently more rational. I thought atheists were supposed to be skeptics.
Yet again, we see you making a claim without any evidence to back it up. Like it or not, saying religion is nonsense is a claim. You're the one making the claims here, so you're the one who has to back them up.Nope. "God exists" is not the default. Who mentions it first is irrelevant.
No, it isn't. You made a claim, you need to back it up. Simple as that. If you were merely doubting the existence of God, I wouldn't be pointing it out. But since you're making actual claims, I'm asking you to stand behind them, rather than retreating to your "I don't need to prove anything" motte.
Your constant claims that "atheists don't need to prove anything" when you keep making all these bold claims are a prime example of the same type of double standard you accuse theists of having. Just like how you keep talking about ad hominem while simultaneously implying I'm mentally defective. It seems to me that you're being hypocritical. Or are you just afraid of having to back up your claims?
The difference is that I have actual evidence that you are not, in fact, King of the Space Fairies.Go on then, let's hear it.
Okay, so you're a bigot. You might as well claim that bisexuality is strong evidence that somebody's a pervert. Moreover, dismissing literally billions of people as "irrational" simply because of their faith is itself irrational.What Svata said. I was talking about the idea itself. Blind faith in a magical sky fairy based on a loose anthology of bronze age myths is inherently less rational than not having blind faith in a magical sky fairy based on a loose anthology of bronze age myths. Other beliefs and behaviour of people who believe in either is irrelevant.
Furthermore, it's not ad hominem to question whether atheism is inherently more rational. I thought atheists were supposed to be skeptics.
No, it isn't. You made a claim, you need to back it up. Simple as that. If you were merely doubting the existence of God, I wouldn't be pointing it out. But since you're making actual claims, I'm asking you to stand behind them, rather than retreating to your "I don't need to prove anything" motte.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof)
Your constant claims that "atheists don't need to prove anything" when you keep making all these bold claims are a prime example of the same type of double standard you accuse theists of having. Just like how you keep talking about ad hominem while simultaneously implying I'm mentally defective. It seems to me that you're being hypocritical. Or are you just afraid of having to back up your claims?
When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmed claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. There are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem.I strongly recommend you read up on how burden of proof works. Arguing about things you clearly don't understand isn't exactly the best way to help your case. Come back when you understand why burden of proof is on the positive claim, rather than who brought it up first.
A negative claim may exist as a counter point to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfil the burden of proof for a negative claim.
False equivalence. God is metaphysical, unlike Bigfoot or ghosts.That is irrelevant. It's still a case of believing in something in spite of a lack of evidence. Without evidence, it's all equally bullshit, "metaphysical" or not.
Come back when you have actual evidence against God's existence. You say God's not real, now back it up.Speaking of ghosts, there are a surprising number of atheists who believe in them. How that works, I have no clue.Atheism is just no belief in gods. Someone can believe in woo and still qualify as atheist, as long as the woo they believe in isn't god(s).
In other words, atheists aren't inherently more rational. I'll remember that for later.Moreover, do you really think being pointlessly dickish to religious people is going to make atheism more popular?No, but that's what what I'm going for. I'm more interested in removing the expectation that everyone else has to validate their beliefs.
Fine. You can question my beliefs all you want. But implying that I'm somehow inferior simply for believing in God is another matter entirely.
Have I mentioned how much I love this board sometimes?
Have I mentioned how much I love this board sometimes?
I'm just laughing at UP's apparent assumption that I'm a fellow Christian. Bast knows I needed the laugh.
Have a video about church.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-4itnOt2Ig
The artist is pretty cool, but also seems to be into a bit of woo.
Have I mentioned how much I love this board sometimes?
I'm just laughing at UP's apparent assumption that I'm a fellow Christian. Bast knows I needed the laugh.
Have a video about church.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-4itnOt2Ig
The artist is pretty cool, but also seems to be into a bit of woo.
I never assumed you were a Christian. But I didn't know you were Kemetic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE0yunabboM
Thanks, UP. I keep forgetting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wMJWlql-UY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wMJWlql-UYAlways good to see another GradeAUnderA fan.
I have been told that the voice actors for this show didn't five a shit about the original script but it looks like everyone involved in the English dub decided that actually translating things is overrated and they could save a lot of money by making the show about sex jokes, racism and born again Christian preacher girl.
I have been told that the voice actors for this show didn't five a shit about the original script but it looks like everyone involved in the English dub decided that actually translating things is overrated and they could save a lot of money by making the show about sex jokes, racism and born again Christian preacher girl.
My brother has this DVD. According to him, the original show was a blandly paint-by-numbers bog standard production, so the dubbers decided it needed a lot of punching up to make it worth doing.
I can still imagine some weeaboo somewhere who considered the original his very favorite show ever and is filled with nerdrage to this day that the dubbers didn't treat it like serious fucking business.
I have been told that the voice actors for this show didn't five a shit about the original script but it looks like everyone involved in the English dub decided that actually translating things is overrated and they could save a lot of money by making the show about sex jokes, racism and born again Christian preacher girl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxJ4VWoeOzs
Here's every presidential campaign ad in a three-minute video:
https://vimeo.com/160842124
Jonathan Pie is a fucking amazing person, even if he's a comedian. He's like a live, angrier version of John Oliver. Ever see his video on the homeless in Britain, and how he basically offers a homeless dude all he can eat at a local chicken joint? Dude's fucking awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XufmHn5gJIU
What’s happening here?
Cards Against Humanity is digging a holiday hole.
Is this real?
Unfortunately it is.
Where is the hole?
America. And in our hearts.
Is there some sort of deeper meaning or purpose to the hole?
No.
What do I get for contributing money to the hole?
A deeper hole. What else are you going to buy, an iPod?
Why aren’t you giving all this money to charity?
Why aren’t YOU giving all this money to charity? It’s your money.
Is the hole bad for the environment?
No, this was just a bunch of empty land. Now there’s a hole there. That’s life.
How am I supposed to feel about this?
You’re supposed to think it’s funny. You might not get it for a while, but some time next year you’ll chuckle quietly to yourself and remember all this business about the hole.
How deep can you make this sucker?
Great question. As long as you keep spending, we’ll keep digging. We’ll find out together how deep this thing goes.
What if you dig so deep you hit hot magma?
At least then we’d feel something.
There is nothing I could possibly say to prepare you for this, so...
(also, how do I directly insert videos again?)
[youtube]SIdL_y1ezk4[/youtube]
This video has been removed due to copyright claim bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9tROAfORnw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9tROAfORnw