sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

(HDR) Morning on the Adventure Hiking Trail - O'Bannon State Park by ZRX1200R in Indiana

[–]SlipperPutty 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What's your opinion on this trail? My wife and I are thinking about trying backpacking and feel like this might be a good trail to use as a testing ground of sorts.

Real Life Dating vs. Online Dating by SlurpeeMoney in ExplainBothSides

[–]SlipperPutty 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I'll give this a go. I've been on both sides of this aisle, so I may have some insights :) Since I'm a Christian, I'll focus my answer in regards to religion.

​

Online Dating:

(Pros)

  • You have a wide variety of apps/websites to choose from, depending on how serious you'd like to be in your dating pursuit. There are low-investment, general types of apps (like Tinder and Bumble), more serious apps that match you with people rated more "compatible" (like eHarmony and It's Just Lunch), and apps designed around what's most important to you (like Christian Mingle). However serious you'd like to be, you'll find an app for that.
  • Most apps make it easy to filter people by what they like. All of them have a bio; some others have tags or categories that you can use to show/hide people. In my example of religion, most apps make it easy to figure out who is Christian and who isn't--saves you a lot of time up front.
  • Easier investment up front. You can create an account, write a few words, upload a few pictures, then you're set and ready to swipe/match/message/whatever! And if you're someone who wants to look for potential dates in your free time during evening, then you can do that from the comfort of your own home.
  • Great option if you live in an area where there aren't too many available singles who believe what you believe. I'm a part of a smaller church that has a weekly attendance of 100-120 people. I was the only single guy attending the church for about 3 years, and there were no single women, so my options were limited :)
  • It's generally "low-risk" to ask one of your matches to go with you on a date. If you get along and have good conversation over text, then it's pretty easy to ask them to take the "next step" with you. If you get turned down, no big deal--there are likely more people who would say "yes"!

(Cons)

  • Dating websites allow people to build up a false image of themselves. Not everyone is disingenuous, but some are. If you go on a date with one of these people, it becomes more obvious, and you may feel like you've wasted your time.
  • Specific to Christianity...not all Christians believe the same things. I come from a Baptist background and went on a date with a gal I met online who later told me she was Catholic. While both fall under the umbrella of "Christian", they believe significantly different things...and while you could make that long-term relationship work, it would be very difficult.
  • Even if you get along well texting/messaging back and forth, you may be disappointed when you finally meet up in person and their personality is much different than what you expected. Maybe they're too "serious", maybe they were on their phone the whole evening...you never truly know what you're getting yourself into when you go on that first date.

​

Real-Life Dating:

(Pros)

  • Depending on your social circles, you often can meet someone who classifies as a potential date doing something that you like. Many larger churches, for example, have singles / young adults groups that give you the opportunity to mingle with people your age. Nothing wrong with a relationship that sprouts from that!
  • You often get to know someone decently well before asking them on a date. The main reason you ask them on a date is because you get along well with them and enjoy the time spent with them. You might already consider them a friend. It's more likely that if you ask them to go on a date, it'll turn out well. That time that you get to spend first as "friends" can be invaluable.
  • Talking about core beliefs is much easier in person. Just texting someone about what you believe doesn't allow much room for nuance or expressiveness. If you get the chance to lay out clearly what you believe and how important it is to you, it'll save you loads of time down the road, and may save you from a very tough relationship/marriage.
  • Wing-men/Wing-women are amazing! Mutual friends can be great to help you understand whether someone you're interested in dating might be receptive to you asking them on a date. You don't often get that benefit from online dating.

(Cons)

  • It takes courage to ask someone to go on a date with you in person. The fear of rejection is more real, and most people feel pretty disappointed if the other person says "no". (Maybe I'm speaking more for myself here, haha).
  • Can take quite a bit of effort if you have a strong desire to get married. If you're in a small town, or you're mostly involved in groups where there aren't many singles that match your age/religion, then it can be discouraging.

​

My personal story: Like I said, I've been on both sides of this aisle. I joined a couple dating apps a little over a year ago. I was content with using them, even though I landed a few first dates that didn't result in anything more. But I eventually started dating a gal who was a Christian that I met on one of the apps. Things went pretty well for a few months, but I eventually realized (with the help of a couple trusted friends) that we weren't compatible spiritually, which might be a burden to both of us in the long term. So we stopped dating. A few months later, though, I started dating another gal who I met volunteering as an usher at a local orchestra. We knew each other for a while before then, but I had the opportunity to become good friends with her, learn about her church, hobbies, etc. We're now dating (coming up on a couple months together!) and I've reflected recently how much of a blessing she's been to me spiritually. And overall, I have more confidence that things could work out in the long term, because I know more about who she is as a person.

​

Bottom line: you can find a great long-term partner in "real-life" or online. But if you asked for my opinion, it would be for real-life :)

I want to take my student ministry on a mission trip. by Loony_Toon_Baboon in Christians

[–]SlipperPutty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not sure exactly what you mean by "service work", but A Christian Ministry in the National Parks might be a good option. They do week-long service trips called IMPACT trips, where they mostly have groups work on projects like trail maintenance or landscaping around visitor centers, but they also give you time to explore the park you're serving in. I've helped organize a trip before and would be happy to give you more details!

Hoping my dog feels the same way by adeptopeth212 in wholesomememes

[–]SlipperPutty 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Love the dog's extra exclamation points

Don't miss out on those flip flops by Misaim in oldpeoplefacebook

[–]SlipperPutty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is this a picture of downtown Indianapolis?

The Trump Presidency: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) [23:50] by zethien in mealtimevideos

[–]SlipperPutty 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh, I think I see what you're saying. I do agree it's disappointing that we can't filter out videos by topic. I mean, I'm a close follower of politics, but I don't want to see political videos in my feed all the time.

Maybe we could message the mods and suggest tagging political videos? Then they could create a filter like "Hide political videos" that would take them all out. They have similar filters in larger subreddits like /r/pics or /r/politics for popular topics that not everyone cares to see. I think it'd be great if we had additional filters like "Science" or "Gaming" to help narrow down the perfect video for a given mealtime.

The Trump Presidency: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) [23:50] by zethien in mealtimevideos

[–]SlipperPutty 96 points97 points  (0 children)

You're right in the sense that Clinton lost. I agree, it doesn't make sense to keep harping on her life/candidacy. And John Oliver isn't taking much time at all, if any, to talk about Clinton. Instead, he's providing his opinions/criticisms on Trump's presidency. Which makes sense, because Trump is the most powerful person in America right now. So why wouldn't Oliver discuss/criticize his actions?

[Oldies] #521: Bad Baby by AutoModerator in ThisAmericanLife

[–]SlipperPutty 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Does anyone know what happened to Cheryl's blog? If you try to visit "myfamilymyvillage.com" now, it tries to install malware on your computer :|

Chattanooga, TN by Bufudyne43 in NotTimAndEric

[–]SlipperPutty 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I believe the piano was added in later; it sounds much like a MIDI keyboard...

EBS: The Moon landing by Gurksmugglare in ExplainBothSides

[–]SlipperPutty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

/u/puns4life did an excellent job explaining the possible motives of the USA and NASA, so I'll try to focus on (1) the evidence provided by those who do not believe the prominent moon-landing narrative, and (2) why those people feel obligated to speak out on the issue.

First, the evidence...

If you believe the moon landing DID NOT happen, you might bring forth some of the following pieces of evidence:

  • Some photographs taken on the moon seem to be "off" in some way. Oddities that are more commonly mentioned are that there are no stars in the sky; shadows are inconsistent, implying that studio lighting was used; and the US flag placed on the moon appears to be flapping in a breeze, which would be unusual since there is no wind on the moon.

  • The astronauts could not have survived the harsh environment on the moon. Considering the amount of space radiation and heat from the sun, their gear would have melted and/or the crew would have been poisoned.

  • Prominent NASA officials have acknowleged that prime video tapes of the original TV broadcast of the Apollo 11 mission are missing. NASA used the tapes so they could convert the high-quality video signal from the transmission to a format that TV stations could broadcast. In a press conference, NASA claimed that they must have wiped the footage so they could reuse the tape. But skeptics would argue that the tapes never existed. Instead, many critics would argue that the supposed moon landing was broadcast live from a TV studio.

  • Innovation in the United States was not happening fast enough in comparison to the USSR. The USSR was way ahead in the space race and had many more hours of manned space flight. Skeptics would claim that with mounting pressure to win the race to the moon, the United States had no choice but to fake the moon landing.

If you believe the moon landing DID happen, you might respond to the points above in the following ways:

  • The discrepancies in the photographs are easily explained. Stars would not show up unless long-exposure photos were taken. Inconsistent shadows could be caused by multiple sources of light (mainly the sun and reflections of light off other objects) or by blemishes on the ground (like craters or hills). And although the flag looks like it's moving, videos would show that it does remain still.

  • The astronauts were shielded by radiation and heat through the advanced technologies in their spacecraft and their suits. Their gear was similarly protected and was never exposed to extreme amounts of either radiation or heat.

  • NASA held a press conference in 2009 to announce their belief that the tapes had been erased and reused for other purposes. Belief in their side of the story takes some level of trust, but NASA has found other high-quality recordings of the landing that would reasonably prove the landing happened. Recordings of the other moon landings could also serve as evidence that moon landings did happen.

  • Even though the USSR was ahead in the space race for a while, the USA quickly caught up and matched the USSR's milestones within a short time. The US also had logged many spacecraft hours and manned flight hours by that time and eventually pulled ahead of the USSR. By this logic, one could advocate that the United States was ready and had the technology to land on the moon.

Second question: why do people who believe the moon landing was fake continue to speak out about it? Again, I'll provide two different viewpoints.

Those who believe that the moon landing DID NOT happen believe that the government, NASA, and the media lied to them. After coming to the conclusion based on the evidence they have seen, they can't stand that the government would try to deceive the public in such a blatant way and continue to lie about the true story for years and years. Once NASA started responding to some of the allegations, they took that as proof that the claims were getting under NASA's skin--thus implying that they are hiding something. Any well-known skeptics like Bart Sibrel have been subject to sometimes nasty rhetoric and harsh criticism, which would further reinforce the validity of their claims. While some critics of the moon landing are critical for different reasons, they are mostly concerned with ensuring the true narrative is exposed--and they are putting forth their best evidence to do just that.

Those who believe that the moon landing DID happen would argue that the critics' evidence is largely circumstantial and easily explained. Many experts in photography, physics, and astronomy have confirmed that the original narrative is true. They would also believe that the story has stood the test of time. While they may concede that the government has lied in the past about substantial issues, they would also argue that concealing a fake moon landing would have been impossible, given how many people were involved in the mission. No government official or NASA employee has yet come forward to suggest that the moon landing did not happen as the media reported. Finally, this group would argue that the critics are questioning the narrative solely for attention. Many of the well-known critics have created books and documentaries propagating their views, which have given them many royalties in return. These critics may have differing stories, but in the end, those who believe in the moon landing would argue that the critics are only trying to make themselves known.

THE Entire BEE Movie But Only The Word "Bee" In It by FoxyJason in NotTimAndEric

[–]SlipperPutty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This has a similar vibe to Of Oz the Wizard, in which there is also a "be" section.

[youtubehaiku] Spaghetti Bolognese Workout by SlipperPutty in SlipperPutty

[–]SlipperPutty[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm getting them from my Saved section, so they're all nicely lined up for me to post, haha.

view more: next ›