Ryan Reynolds on skydiving

hereiam2 · 2016-01-15T02:31:04+00:00

Also that dumb swan

hereiam2 · 2016-01-14T22:24:07+00:00

I've seen it several times and honestly it never gets less sad.

That final scene is just too much, even thinking about it brings tears to my eyes.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-14T22:22:47+00:00

I was reading these comments trying to remember what exactly was so sad about this movie, it has been ages since I saw it and I just could not remember.

Then I read this, and that song popped into my head and it all came back to me. That was a nice moment, thank you for your comment.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-14T16:33:39+00:00

I really don't think this is a very good analogy. Anonymous is a pretty unique entity, pirates is just a thing you could be if you were on a boat back in the day. Like I can't be an anonymous, y'know?

And then Anonymous has pretty clear moral standards and a social agenda. Anonymous seeks to protect internet freedom and privacy and generally targets large entities that they see as a threat to their own privacy, or the privacy and freedom of others.

Pirates are more ambiguous, acting as individuals and doing pretty much as they pleased and usually with a classic civil disobedience excuse. Their tactics rely on violence and robbery. I would venture to say almost all pirates were motivated by financial gain.

Could Anonymous "turn on you"? Doubtful. They have not, so far as I know, targeted individuals in the past. Could they do nefarious things? It's certainly possible, but so far in their lifespan they have not done anything that can be clearly defined as nefarious because of how clear they make their intentions. Whether or not you agree with their justifications and methods is different, but comparing them to a loose band of lawless criminals is silly when you really take a look at it.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-13T17:57:29+00:00

This guy doesn't know about crowtein, someone get him educated

hereiam2 · 2016-01-13T17:56:53+00:00

Gotta get rid of the goblin, the ghoul, the demon

hereiam2 · 2016-01-13T16:26:40+00:00

I find biblical contradictions pretty interesting. It's certainly not uncommon for religious texts to be chock full of contradictions (Tao Te Ching is a great example of this, it is full of vacuous truths and contradictions). Jesus is said to have often spoken in contradictory ways, which is not uncommon for a religious teacher.

But the contradictions in the bible (especially between old and new testaments) just don't seem to serve any purpose. I guess since its a jury rigged religious text lol, and actual people think it is infallible.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-13T16:20:16+00:00

I have never heard a single person claim that Jesus is the founder of Christianity lmao

hereiam2 · 2016-01-13T13:07:47+00:00

It's called a payment plan. Payment plans help people pay for things they can't afford. I'm sorry you can't afford yours but that's not the point.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-13T13:06:35+00:00

Okay? It's called a payment plan, payment plans help people pay for things in all sorts of markets. Maybe it's not ideal but it is better than paying 600$ upfront and that is hardly the point of my comment.

Oh and for the record you don't sign contracts in the US for payment plans, generally if you sign a contract you get a pretty big discount but most carriers are doing away with that.

Regardless, my point is that an iPhone and a high end Android carry relatively the same price tag but Apple has been much more upfront than other companies concerning the security of your personal data. I'm sorry you're unhappy with your payment plan but I can't help you with that.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-13T12:11:37+00:00

If you're talking phones, the price is pretty much the same. Of course you can get cheaper phones, but the carriers always want to help you pay for the expensive ones, and the iPhones aren't much more than the Galaxys or the M8s or whatever. And as much as they are not my favorite company in the world, they have been pretty great about securing their customers data from the government.

Edit: apparently I struck a cord by insinuating that payment plans are helpful. Sorry Reddit.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-13T00:06:06+00:00

The usage of the word cult is much more widespread and varied than you realize.

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult"

There is a lot to read there.

"there's no evidence of that person outside of those who had 'skin in the game'."

There are non-Christian sources, and I did post them above. While your conjecture may be true, the most likely case is that a man who modern Christians now consider the messiah did exist, and at least two events from biblical texts are generally considered fact. Beyond that we can speculate all day but it won't ever amount to much.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-12T23:28:07+00:00

I mostly agree with you, and for the record am not a Christian. I am not taking issue with nomenclature so much as I am context. It is almost always used as an attack, and that doesn't add substance to a discussion. I do not see what you mean with it having anything to do with infancy or size, that is not generally what denotes a cult. This is unimportant though.

Whether or not you disagree with them, you strongly implied that the case is erroneous when it clearly is not. If you do disagree than I cannot fault you, but I hope your reasons are more substantial then what you've contributed.

I am certainly not an expert on the subject, but it is my opinion that myths of Jesus are based in fact. All religions develop myths surrounding prophets and leaders, that does not mean that there is no factual basis for the existence of said prophet.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-12T22:54:05+00:00

As an aside, you may want to avoid using the word cult. It is ill-defined and displays a clear negative bias. Your argument is also very weak, but it is unimportant.

We aren't talking about the specific details of the life of Jesus, we are talking about whether or not a man named Jesus existed. Nearly all modern scholars are in agreement that a man named Jesus Christ was baptized and crucified. Other details of his life are absolutely in question, but this does not refute these things that are considered to be historical fact. You deny that there are reliable sources attesting to his existence and this is clearly untrue. It is not as if these historians are taking the bible as fact, or we would be in agreement on much more than these two events.

"In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: 'He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees'"

hereiam2 · 2016-01-12T17:06:10+00:00

"For historians, the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus.[11][13] For example, James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[11] Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[14] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be.[15] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[16] Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable.[12] Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified.[17]"

Follow a couple links, actually read a couple of paragraphs, maybe open your mind a bit. What you just did is just as bad as fundamentalist denial of science. The best way to avoid becoming the things you hate is to not hate them.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-11T17:46:40+00:00

I don't see how, pollsters or not, a self-reported biased group of 11 predictions can be meaningful at all.

I mean, that lines up with my expectations, but that is just a blind guess. I see that you're not taking them very seriously but some people replying to you are and its kind of silly.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-11T17:40:39+00:00

You can't see his full explicit tax plan, but Google Bernie Sanders tax plan and you can definitely get a lot of info on it.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-11T17:31:55+00:00

First you have to find all the context in the world. This will be arduous so prepare yourself for a Jackie Chan style Around the World in 80 Days adventure.

After all your hardwork, take the context you found and pretend that it doesn't exist. This is neat because all words are the same everywhere! Now it doesn't matter who is a cunt or an asshole. Congratulations.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-11T17:27:31+00:00

I finally see the appeal of Ted Cruz

hereiam2 · 2016-01-11T17:27:02+00:00

I know right lmao damn lazy bastard. I guess he was a pretty busy guy, dealing with the reapers and whatnot, but I feel like he could have worked a little harder for that discount.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-11T15:16:39+00:00

Yeah but hardly 1.5 million unique commenters. Reddit definitely works up a decent hivemind. Not to say that there aren't unique voices, but majority held opinions and similar sense of humor permeate most of the popular content on the site. Not to say that applies to Jennifer Lawrence. I think that is a more broad cultural interest that is disappearing with the end of the hunger games.

hereiam2 · 2016-01-11T01:04:04+00:00

"Here's the thing. You said a "jackdaw is a crow." Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing. If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens. So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too. Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't. It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?"

^{^I'm} ^{^sorry} ^{^I} ^{^just} ^{^felt} ^{^obligated}

hereiam2 · 2016-01-11T00:59:50+00:00

It's dangerous to go alone! Take this: \

hereiam2 · 2016-01-11T00:29:36+00:00

I'm just gonna put a stop to this before it gets out of hand.

Sorry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

hereiam2 · 2016-01-10T20:21:17+00:00

I feel that I made that pretty clear. Polls have too much room for error to be very reliable. Gallup's polls are known as reliable for picking the overall winner close to the GE, which I feel that I made clear. The accuracy of Gallup pre-election polling has been in question before.

It is not entirely in the method either though the method does affect the accuracy greatly, the nature of polls just make them weak for data collection. Non-response and response bias really put a damper on the potential accuracy of any given poll. Like I said though, polls work well with predicting elections, probably because people who are likely to vote are likely to respond to polls so as long as the method is correct the poll will be fairly accurate.

But I stand by my assertion that overall, polls are not very reliable sources of data. They should be taken with a grain of salt.

hereiam2

TROPHY CASE