Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Has anyone realized that this was staged yet?

generalgrog wrote:When you remove God from the equation anythings goes, or as Dostoevski put it "If there is no God, everything is permitted."


GG

Ethics has nothing to do with God, and God has nothing to do with Ethics.

Seeing as the Christian God has done many, many unethical things according to the bible.

Of course, you'll probably say I'm Christian-bashing now, but let's face it, you make an exception for things that the Christian God does, they're all ethical to you no matter what they are. So that's not exactly a very consistent system of ethics.

Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that there are hundreds of ethical systems that are more philosophically mature than "because god said so". Many of them were created by Christians, others by Agnostics and Atheists, others by other religions (many, MANY ethical systems were created before the existence of Judaism and Christianity and Islam; or before said religions ever touched the region. Some of them are simple, others are very complex. But they exist.). Ethics exists with or without the existence of God. The "because god said so" ethical system is immature, the kind of thing that you'd see parents say to little babies because their intellectual facilities aren't developed enough for the intelligent thought needed to comprehend things other than base instinct yet.

Obnoxious atheists aren't the worst, but that's just because we live in a world where many people hate homosexuals, ethnic minorities, and women.

I drive by that sign on my way to work every morning. There is a cute little burn mark on the grass. Made me smile. Funniest thing is that this guy lives in the wrong place if he hates gays. Minneapolis has one of the highest gay/straight ratios in the country. Silly bigot (not silly christian bigot, just bigot. I know to many truly excellent people who live their christian values).

Think of all the jokes if he burned Trix!!!!!! Oh man, makes me sad with all the possibilities.

Amaya wrote:Has anyone realized that this was staged yet?

And why is that? The man has a track record.

On an unrelated note, I'm glad I missed the last two pages of this thread.

Amaya wrote:Has anyone realized that this was staged yet?

From Page 1:

Manchu wrote:In this vid, we have a guy who is pretty clearly mentally impaired. It's a fair bet that his "accomplices" are taking the piss, setting this guy up to make a funny video.

What makes him "pretty clearly mentally impaired"?

I don't mean crazy like schizophrenic. I mean uneducated and wacky and generally off. Like a person you would not hire to work at your business but also wouldn't call the asylum to cart away. Like a person you would not listen to about serious topics.

Burning cheerios in front of General Mills is a pretty good sign of this.

He's a real estate agent.

Or was, more likely.

Yeah, I know. I read the link posted earlier. It didn't say whether he was free lance or what but I think you know what my guess is. Would you buy a house from a man who burns cheerios to protest anything? I doubt he's very busy in his work ...

House? no.

Fire insurance? Yes please.

That's a really good point. If there is a way to reach him, kronk, you need to pass on that idea.

We all put on faces. Just because he showed up angry in a youtube video doesn't mean he can't be competent in his work. We're only seeing one side of this man. Humanity has a tendency to judge people based on first appearances. Man trips? Clumsy. Cuts you off on the freeway? total donkey-cave.

You could be the meanest prison guard in the world or the most violent cop and then go home and show your family care. Rush Limbaugh gives his waitresses hundred dollar tips. Abraham Lincoln really did struggle with racism. A terrorist planting a road side bomb, getting hit by a blond-haired sniper half a mile away, could have had a friend, a favorite sports team, and a favorite food. Those million dollar executives? Same thing. But we don't really know these things. We can't think about them, it'd drive us mad.

Other humans aren't really...human, to us. I'm not a full individual to everyone who reads this just as much as you aren't to me. This is just our "internet face", and it's all we'll ever know of each other. Just because some of us are heated or less than competent on here doesn't mean we can't go out and be comparatively normal human beings.

So is it really fair to make any assumptions about the man other than that he doesn't like gay people?

tl,dr; Just because he failed hard and has a skewed views system doesn't mean he can't go on being a relatively normal human being.

This may be a fun thread yet! Yay!

I maybe late, but the guy was burning Cheerios because General MIlls came out and said that they were opposed to the Gay Marriage Ban amendment coming up for vote on election day. This ban would become part of the Minnesota state constitution. Cheerios are made by General Mills.

That is the backstory to why a crazy bigot would try to light some Cheerios on fire.

So General Mills donate to "Hate" grps now. I see I see

Technically they didn't necessarily donate, they made a political stance against a ban on gay marriage.

They have a company-wide position of equality, and are being consistent about it, basically. Who'da thunkit.

Jihadin wrote:So General Mills donate to "Hate" grps now. I see I see

No, the opposite.

In response, General Mills have been picketed and a boycott was launched against them by said groups. That is what led to this video.

Manchu wrote:I guess so. Right, like how someone can read the instructions on a tube of Preparation H and end up brushing their teeth with it.

Leviticus 20:13 wrote:If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Some parts of the King James Bible are blatantly opposed to homosexuality, especially Leviticus. This crazy guy isn't making up gak about the Bible. He is a Christian and when Christians claim he's not, they're falling victim to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

And no, I am not saying that all Christians are idiots. But I will say this; Christians who take Leviticus seriously and disregard the parts of the Bible contradicting it, are idiots. And the Christians who take genesis literally are idiots too (Earth is 6000 years old, women have periods because Eve listened to a talking Snake and evolution don't real). Genesis works best as a more figurative thing.

Even if you ignore the translation errors in that line (which, depending on how its translated, may not actually condemn homosexuality at all), using it still makes you a hypocrite if you don't also follow the rest of leviticus.

Corpsesarefun wrote:Pretty much any powder is incredibly flammable when aerosolised, thermite and flour both work.

You won't make thermite incredible flammable by aerosolizing it. Whether dispersed or just in a pile, it will have the same ignition point and once that is triggered in either form it will create an equally violent exothermic reaction. But you have to use something that burns very hot first as an ignition key, such as magnesium. However, flour, yes. Aerosolized flour will make a nasty inendiary device with just a few sparks.

xole wrote:tl,dr; Just because he failed hard and has a skewed views system doesn't mean he can't go on being a relatively normal human being.

That's the thing about the extremely religious: their religion tends to permeate every aspect of their lives, as religion is wont to do. As religion is almost by definition a system of irrationalities and outright lies based around the idea of social control, then it is a fair assumption to say that an extremely religious person is irrational in many, if not most, aspects of their life.

However, this is all based on your definition of what "normal" means. For example, there are lots of people who have been taught that this is normal.

A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."

I.... I need to lay down now.

Before I murder someone.

azazel the cat wrote:
However, this is all based on your definition of what "normal" means. For example, there are lots of people who have been taught that this is normal.

Now thats what I call a world class edukashun.

LoneLictor wrote:
Some parts of the King James Bible are blatantly opposed to homosexuality, especially Leviticus. This crazy guy isn't making up gak about the Bible. He is a Christian and when Christians claim he's not, they're falling victim to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No, he's not a Christian. He, like virtually all Christians, are only selectively practicing what is said in the Bible. There are hundreds of oddly specifc rules that you have to follow. Fun facts:

True Christians are forbidden from wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. So poly-cotton blend = not a Christian.

True Christians are forbidden from sitting on any seat where a menstruating woman has sat. So riding the bus or sharing any seat in your home with your wife = not a Christian.

True Christians play the lyre twice a day. So no lyre = not a Christian.

True Christians cannot shave their beards. So not looking like the Unabomber = not a Christian.

Melissia wrote:Even if you ignore the translation errors in that line (which, depending on how its translated, may not actually condemn homosexuality at all), using it still makes you a hypocrite if you don't also follow the rest of leviticus.

Haven't read it myself I must admit. Is there other parts of leviticus that say gayness not so bad afterall?

Really shouldn't have ever slapped the old testament onto there. Would have saved literally every single problem with Christianity. Take out letters and revelations, too, just to be on the safe side.

@ azazel, my definition of normal is being able to function in a society without ending up in jail, homeless, or in isolation. He won't get along with some people, but who does?

xole wrote:Really shouldn't have ever slapped the old testament onto there. Would have saved literally every single problem with Christianity. Take out letters and revelations, too, just to be on the safe side.

Yep, things are a lot simpler if you just concentrate on what Jesus said. The worst we would have had was "God Hates Figs."

xole wrote:Really shouldn't have ever slapped the old testament onto there. Would have saved literally every single problem with Christianity. Take out letters and revelations, too, just to be on the safe side.

@ azazel, my definition of normal is being able to function in a society without ending up in jail, homeless, or in isolation. He won't get along with some people, but who does?

Again, to add to my earlier list of oddly specific rules, any true Christian who follows all the rules in the Bible is required to stone adulterers to death. So, yeah, I'd say that it's impossible for Christians to abide by your definition of normal, unless they are willing to admit that they only selectively read the Bible in accordance to their own personal views, and thus invalidate the book overall.

azazel the cat wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:
Some parts of the King James Bible are blatantly opposed to homosexuality, especially Leviticus. This crazy guy isn't making up gak about the Bible. He is a Christian and when Christians claim he's not, they're falling victim to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No, he's not a Christian. He, like virtually all Christians, are only selectively practicing what is said in the Bible. There are hundreds of oddly specifc rules that you have to follow. Fun facts:

True Christians are forbidden from wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. So poly-cotton blend = not a Christian.

True Christians are forbidden from sitting on any seat where a menstruating woman has sat. So riding the bus or sharing any seat in your home with your wife = not a Christian.

True Christians play the lyre twice a day. So no lyre = not a Christian.

True Christians cannot shave their beards. So not looking like the Unabomber = not a Christian.

Your mixing up orthodox Judaism with Christianity my friend. This whole argument about "If you don't follow old testament law to the letter than you aren't a true Christian" is a huge red herring. Paul delt with this issue during the early church, they were called judaisers.

I'm not a judaiser, I'm not an orthodox Jew. I'm a Christian. The law as practiced in the old testament has passed away in the sense of following temple rituals, and legal laws. That is part of the reason for the Holy Spirit, which wasn't released fully until after Pentecost of Acts 2. "the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life"

GG

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Melissia wrote:Even if you ignore the translation errors in that line (which, depending on how its translated, may not actually condemn homosexuality at all), using it still makes you a hypocrite if you don't also follow the rest of leviticus.

Haven't read it myself I must admit. Is there other parts of leviticus that say gayness not so bad afterall?

No. But Christians don't have to follow Leviticus; it was a recording of the old laws, the old Covenant. We are under new laws, a new Covenant-- a new Testament.

It's far better to look at the Old Testament and see it as a history, to look at so that you can understand the New.

...which is what LoneLictor was talking about when he said that so-called Christians who take the pronoucements in Leviticus seriously are idiots. Because those dont' apply anymore. Still, Leviticus has been used for centuries by bigoted Christians when they want to justify hatred toward gay people. Which is a pretty darn un-Christian thing to do, in truth, which makes it a curiosity why it's so common.

Manchu wrote:I don't mean crazy like schizophrenic. I mean uneducated and wacky and generally off. Like a person you would not hire to work at your business but also wouldn't call the asylum to cart away. Like a person you would not listen to about serious topics.

But saying "mentally impaired" implies that he's not competent to take care of himself or be held responsible for his words or actions. Which, is part of what makes absurd stuff like this and that jackass in the Chick Fil A drive-through disturbing. These may be otherwise reasonable people who are significantly damaged and incompetent only in certain areas; which sadly they still get to vote regarding.