Battered Suitcases Piled on the Sidewalk Again

pilgrimkitty: awesome. I dare you to defy stupid jock...

Tue, 22 May 2012 15:30:49 -0500

pilgrimkitty:

awesome.

I dare you to defy stupid jock stereotypes.

I second that awesome.

missallytn: As Andy Cohen showed last night on WWHL, this is...

Tue, 15 May 2012 11:54:48 -0500

missallytn:

As Andy Cohen showed last night on WWHL, this is what happens when hipster have kids.

Hahaha, soooo…these will be what your kids are like, then*? :)

*genuinely mean that as a compliment!

spacerobot5: comfortableanddangerous: glassmountain: stfuconse...

Tue, 15 May 2012 11:53:23 -0500

spacerobot5:

comfortableanddangerous:

glassmountain:

stfuconservatives:

nextyearsgirl:

This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:

The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.

According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.

When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.

So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.

/An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do.

^

(mic drop)

boom

Actually no.While I agree with your conclusion, your argument is silly. Jesus’ dying on the cross is not our permission to do whatever we please because if we are moral then by not sinning we are saying Jesus’ death is invalid. While I do believe that gays should be free to get married and do whatever they please, I don’t believe it’s right or fair to use my religion to make yourself look smart and “holier than thou”. Your logic is about as backward as I’ve seen.

I hate it when atheists talk about how they know so much more about my religion than I do. Then they make fun of it, then they call me the insensitive, intolerant one. I have NEVER belittled someone or disrespected them in any way because their belief sets were different from mine, and yet I am the intolerant one. Please show some respect, or at the very least keep your hateful speech to yourself instead of tricking others into being as ignorant and intolerant as yourself.

If Atheists publicly attacked the beliefs of Muslims, They would be assholes. Just sayin.

^THIS. Also, while Jesus never directly refers to homosexuality, he does refer to sexual immorality quite a few times. There are also a few references to homosexuality in the NT. Regardless, the cross is not exactly a get-out-of-jail-free card. While the blood of Christ does atone for our sins, its not a reason to keep on sinning. I call it cheap grace, the idea of continuing to sin knowing that you’ll be forgiven. Salvation, is a two step process if you live long enough. Acknowledging that Christ is Lord, and repentence. Repentence doesnt mean your sorry, it means your sorry and you are going to change. Doesnt mean you arent allowed to make mistakes or have struggles, Im talking about the kind of attitude I used to have: party all week at school and then go to church on sunday.

All this being said, Jesus loves a gay man just as much as anyone. Christians should to. You dont need to agree with their sexual preferences, but that doesnt mean you should hate someone. I believe marriage is a legal, emotional, and sexual commitment between a man and a woman that is a covenant before God and man. I also believe the constitution grants its rights to all free people, those rights including the benefits awarded by the law to a married couple. Denying those rights to a couple does as much to encourage heterosexuality as prohibiting marijuana does to discourage smoking it. In the long run it makes a “christian nation” seem pretty harsh and unloving. So keep the gay “marriages” or civil unions out of the church, or at least dont force churches to perform one and if a church thinks its ok to perform one then great.

I believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible, and I believe in America and the Constitution. There should be a way to cater to both.

Because this is about the seventy second time this stupid gif has showed up in my RSS feed, I now have to comment:

^This last response. YES. There should be a way to cater to both! I bet there are lots of ways, actually.

Ugh. I want this so bad right now. Stupid meds.

Sat, 12 May 2012 21:30:45 -0500

Ugh. I want this so bad right now. Stupid meds.

Conservative Republican Edwina Rogers named ED of the SAC

Sat, 12 May 2012 21:29:15 -0500

This Reddit AMA with Edwina Rogers, new Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America, just consumed half my night. I will wait to see what she does before condeming her, since she’s obviously qualified to lead, but her political affiliations with the religious right (and a donation to Rick Perry) and apparent ignorance of her own party’s general platform are disconcerting, to say the least.

For some really fun sidestepping, evasiveness and generally uninformative double speak, check out Greta Christina’s interviews with Rogers, and SAC board director and ED of the American Humanist Association Roy Speckhardt.

laughterkey: monday-friday: Kids, back in 2012, your aunt...

Thu, 10 May 2012 15:34:54 -0500

laughterkey:

monday-friday:

Kids, back in 2012, your aunt Robin wanted to do something more with her life. So she took her love of guns to an organization called S.H.I.E.L.D and fought alongside the Avengers.

Now, your Uncle Barney and I took it pretty hard; she was getting to spend a lot of time with another billionaire playboy, this guy named Tony Stark. Your Uncle Barney almost went crazy when he found out the guy had a metal suit.

“It shoots fireballs, Ted! He looks like a freakin’ storm trooper!”

Then your uncle Barney decided to fight back.

fuckyeahhistorycrushes: Rābiʻa al-ʻAdawiyya, a great woman...

Tue, 01 May 2012 15:38:44 -0500

fuckyeahhistorycrushes:

Rābiʻa al-ʻAdawiyya, a great woman saint of Sufism, was seen running through the streets of her hometown, Basra, carrying a torch in one hand and a bucket of water in the other. When someone asked her what she was doing, she answered, ‘I am going to take this bucket of water and pour it on the flames of hell, and then I am going to use this torch to burn down the gates of paradise, so that people will not love God for want of heaven or fear of hell, but because He is God.’

Source: Looking for Alaska, John Green

Roger Ebert vs. everything, apparently!

Tue, 01 May 2012 02:35:00 -0500

MISTER Ebert -

I have been reading your blog for over three years. It was only after the below letter you received that I realized I have been incredibly angry with you lately. You keep talking in your posts about the past: the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s - years I have never seen. You offhandedly mention writers, filmmakers, and the ‘intellectual and artistic elite’ that I will never meet, incredible times you’ve known and terrible times you’ve known - times I won’t ever understand, because books are for people with library cards. It’s all in poor taste, just like that ad you probably purposely ran about Michelle and Barack on your one webpage that one time.

I’m only 25 years old! I don’t want to know about things or people that weren’t around when I wasn’t alive! It’s seriously unfair that you’re touting how wonderful things seemed when I wasn’t even born yet. I especially don’t want to know your opinions on the advent of 3D (actual film was a THING?! I seriously thought 16mm was a joke, like recorded music on something called “vinyl” and drawings before that one iPad app), or Citizen Kane and the best films ever made (seriously, why is Fight Club not on that list) or how (Shard) architecture can ruin an iconic skyline. None of that is relevant to my life. Why would you even post such things?

You should appeal to all of your avid readers, all of the time, without fail. I appreciate your reviews, since they all say “two thumbs up” or “five stars” all of the time. You should stick to that rosy view of the world in your blog, where everything is amazing. Where every movie made is, like, totally, awesome, like everything else. I mean, above all else, and just like the original letter-writer says, you’re an objective reporter. (N.B.: did he actually write a letter? Or was it an e-mail? Was it sent by carrier pigeon or postperson or this internet thing that I’m clearly just getting the hang of, DAMN YOU 21st century! Just curious. In an objective way.)

Wait, despite that long segue in parentheses, did I just give the impression that it is nigh impossible to be objective whilst viewing a film? Because IT IS TOTALLY POSSIBLE. It’s just like news reporting, except you’re reporting largely on things that have no obvious grounds in objectivity. Beauty, death, art, philosophy, humor, love, friendships, revenge, horror, and all the nuances of these things - they may be classically labeled as “subjective,” but you, Mr. Ebert, have the distinct and sole responsibility to classify those things into other “so-called” subjective ratings. In reality, though, these ratings - “stars” or “thumbs” as you’ll call them - are truth. Facts. And if you review a film, it’s clearly 100% objective - nothing to do with your thoughts on, really, well anything, because a review on your webpage should obviously reflect what I think is right at this particular moment. You see, I’m allowed to be subjective, but you’re not. Even though you’re not an actual news reporter, I expect you to be.

Maybe I’ve been reading you for the wrong reasons. Maybe I just wanted to see you rate my favorite movies well. Maybe I just wanted to know that I was just as right as the critics. And, seriously, I could totally do your job. I’m fairly sure that, me being a 25-year-old-political-science-liberal-arts-college-educated-lady, you should, at the very least, have the same opinion that I do on everything. I’m pretty insulted that you had the gall - THE GALL, SIR - to allow an ad on your page that I disagreed with. I will never read you again, because despite the fact that you’re kind of an icon and a good film critic and an even more brilliant writer, I simply cannot get past this one. Your reputation has been destroyed in one instant by this one advert that you probably had no control over. That is something I cannot ever forgive.

In response to this letter to Mr. Ebert, as posted on facebook, via his editor:

I’ve been a fan of Roger Ebert over the years, valuing his opinion on entertainment, especially with the high cost of attending movies today.

Today that value was trashed when, on his web site (rogerebert.com), I was hit in the face with a very prominently placed ad for President Obama and his wife, encouraging me to join them.

I don’t understand why a valued reporter would allow his objectivity to be jeopardized by touting a politician (and Obama IS above all, a politician), as if the qualifications in one area applied to another unrelated field. A man’s reputation is built over years, but can be destroyed in an instant. That’s what happened in this case. How sad.

Goodbye, Mr. Ebert…..

***This is the most important thing of all: Mr. Roger Ebert, if you ever read this (unlikely) - you’ve been a great force in my life these last couple years. It’s not your reviews - it’s that we grew up in (close to) the same area with similar stories, albeit different decades, and though I don’t want to do what you do for a living, you are one of the very few people I look up to. Your intelligence, grace, integrity and compassion are what inspire me to be the person I long to become. Your writing has provided me with a path towards that person, and I cannot thank you enough for that.

through savannah and to the sea: What do these two have in common?

Tue, 01 May 2012 00:08:19 -0500

through savannah and to the sea: What do these two have in common?:

coldshowerswarmhands:

“The current work stoppage — the fourth in league history — began on July 1, 2011, when the previous collective bargaining agreement (CBA) ended after six years. The CBA is the labor blueprint (setting salaries, rules for trades, etc) between the players and the owners. Without a collective bargaining agreement with the players, the NBA would be subject to America’s antitrust laws, which protect against monopolies.”

Well ya learn something new every day, dontcha.

Other than nothing?

It was William Tecumseh Sherman’s brother, John Sherman, who made the Sherman Anti-trust act. But okay.

Ugh, all this egg on my face is hard to get off, but refreshingly moisturizing nonetheless! I’m sorry I used an incorrect picture (which I changed above to John Sherman, as you so kindly pointed out! I like correcting my egregious mistakes, especially when comparing old-timey war generals to new-fangled douchey basketball stars). The point was, though, that if it weren’t for the CBA the NBA would be subject to antitrust laws. So even though I stupidly, stupidly attributed it to the wrong Sherman, the idea is the same.

Anyway, this post is nearly six months old with no reposts before yours, georgiamontoya (is that a Princess Bride reference I smell there?! In which case, we should just be friends), so it must have taken a lot of scrolling to actually come across this. So thank you for your time! Both your correction and your reminder that the NBA almost didn’t even have a season this year are welcome, even if my beloved Bulls aren’t looking like they have much of a chance at the finals anymore.

That Community nonsense, however, is tempered by the fact that...

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 03:25:45 -0500

That Community nonsense, however, is tempered by the fact that someone in these here credits is named “Strawberry Fields” - for real. I won’t say that I definitely watched Queen of the Damned all the way to credits, but I will say I watched some credits, of some movie, at some point.

Man it is weird

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 03:23:05 -0500

seeing a friend of a very old ex show up as a guest star on one of my most beloved sitcoms. Seriously. That’s just mean, Community, to come back after such a long hiatus with something that just brings back old nonsense. Good lord.

Third World Think Tank: Why I can never understand Atheism

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:09:51 -0500

Third World Think Tank: Why I can never understand Atheism:

spacerobot5:

“I can accept the fact that religious people have done some crazy things. Heck, it was the “religious” people of his time that crucified Jesus. Therefore, i can understand why some people can be turned off to certain religions. But to believe in nothing is something I can never understand. Theres more to life than just beginning middle and end. i think it takes more faith to believe that this whole universe was the result of nothing exploding into something and that over billions of years, a force called gravity, which no scientist can still really explain how it works caused all these random minerals/elements/gases/etc to spin together and form stars and planets. that on our own earth, which is within a relatively microscopic window of our solar system to support life, suddenly went from a lifeless planet to the only one we know with life.To me it seems more explainable that there is some kind of celestial entity wether Yahweh, Buddha, Allah, or any one of the thousand deities there have been over the years orchestrating a very specific scientific process. Something of which the odds are overwhelmingly against occurring.”

Though that “religious people have done some crazy things” idea might be an impetus for a person turning to atheism, it rarely keeps them there. Religion doesn’t do crazy things, crazy people do crazy things. And everyone is going to realize that soon enough. With that argument aside, you have an interesting viewpoint on the reason an atheist requires more faith for their explanation of life than say, a Christian creationist one. But it’s purely deductive reasoning, and more importantly, it’s wrong to say that belief in the Big Bang theory is based on faith. It’s based on science. And we don’t need to have faith in science - it has proven itself correct many times in the past and will continue to do so in the future. And before you respond with a “well, science has been wrong before” argument, I will counter with a big fat “so what?” When science was wrong in its theories, it adjusted, evolved or just scrapped those theories and found better ones. That’s something religion doesn’t do - it doesn’t change, it doesn’t adjust to modernity, observation or facts. Just because science doesn’t have all the answers right now doesn’t mean it never will. That’s not faith - it’s logical reasoning based on past observations. And just because the odds are overwhelmingly against something occurring doesn’t mean it’s impossible. And probability theory says that even the most improbable event will occur an infinite amount of times over time (assuming infinite time!)

“Not to mention the spiritual consequences of there being nothing. You live your life for what? To die and return to dust? Whats the point of living if nothing of it ever matters? We are here for more than procreation. If theres no afterlife of any kind, then thats all you really did, advance the species in a giant generational hamster wheel. Theres nothing to hope for in life if all you have to look forward to is death. And whats life without hope?”

This is the most common argument against atheism, and always the most insulting one, too. One of my favorite quotes is “If nothing you do matters, then ALL that matters is what you do.” An atheist doesn’t look forward to death, she looks forward to life. Her “spirituality” is found in family, friends, nature, adventure, literature… I would argue that it’s the religious who are much more preoccupied with death: so afraid of it they need the thought of something after, and so afraid of the perils of life they need the thought of forgiveness, salvation, eternal love. They need the bribe of heaven and the fear of hell to live “correctly.” I’m not trying to say this is always a bad thing. I can understand it. But to say that an atheist has no hope? Insulting. They have hope in the loyalty of their friends, in the unconditional love their parents, in the endless wonders of this earth, in the boundless possibilities for themselves. They don’t live solely for procreation. Just because atheists don’t believe in God doesn’t mean you can liken them to a dog. To say that without an afterlife an atheist has done nothing but procreate is to negate a person’s entire life, to render it worthless. Are you saying that atheist never brought joy to anyone? Never contributed to society, never knew love, never shared love? And the bigger problem there is the implication that just because someone believes in an afterlife, that their life on earth is somehow worth more. How is that? Will their impact on people and the planet be remembered longer? Will they have inherently brought more joy to their friends here just because they believe in an afterlife? Even you must say no to those questions, because one’s belief or disbelief in God doesn’t make their actions any less valuable.

There’s comfort in atheism, just as there’s comfort in religion. It’s just that atheism is based on reason, and faith is free from reason.

Dream:

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:18:41 -0500

spacerobot5:

austin policeman. make detective or higher ranks. make dough. catch bad guys. love her. travel world. build house. make babies. die old.

is it really too much to ask for.

That is really all anyone should ever ask for. :)

wilwheaton: laurennmcc: I’d eat those. (via juliasegal) I...

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:29:51 -0500

wilwheaton:

laurennmcc:

I’d eat those.

(via juliasegal)

I don’t eat cupcakes, but I might make an exception for these…

wilwheaton: therealkatiewest: thedailywhat: Another Follow Up...

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:54:13 -0600

wilwheaton:

therealkatiewest:

thedailywhat:

Another Follow Up of the Day: The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) has sided with the MPAA in its decision to reject The Weinstein Company’s request to lower the rating of the film studio’s bullying documentary from an R to a PG-13 so it could be used as an educational aid.

Bully received an R rating from the MPAA for “some language.”

If The Weinstein Company makes good on its threat to set aside the rating system, NATO’s President and CEO John Fithian said in a statement, “I will have no choice but to encourage my theater owner members to treat unrated movies from The Weinstein Company in the same manner as they treat unrated movies from anyone else.”

The would mean branding Bully an NC-17 movie, prohibiting anyone under the age of 18 from viewing it.

Responding with its own statement, The Weinstein Company called the treatment of Bully as an NC-17 film “unconscionable, not to mention unreasonable.”

The statement continued: “In light of the tragedy that occurred yesterday in Ohio, we feel now is the time for the bullying epidemic to take center stage, we need to demand our community takes action.”

A petition posted to Change.org by a teenage victim of bullying calling for the MPAA to reverse its decision has racked up over 100,000 signatures since it was launched a three days ago.

[deadline.]

This does not have NEAR ENOUGH notes. I cried within the first 10 seconds of watching this trailer. And then continued to bawl like a baby for the rest of it. Kudos to the Weinstein Company for taking a stand on this.

The MPAA is, once again, on the wrong side of every issue. I just put on a hat so I could take it off for the Weinstein Company.

Seth Rogen with the last word. And hopefully now we can all...

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:25:10 -0600

Seth Rogen with the last word. And hopefully now we can all forget Chris Brown even exists. (Brett Ratner is a douche too, though.)

"Sorry im not sorry"

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:15:10 -0600

"Sorry im not sorry" :

spacerobot5:

Ladies, I get it. I understand you dont want a bunch of men telling you how you get your birth control or whatnot. I wouldnt want a bunch of ladies telling me what to do with that kind of stuff either. However, the vast majority of you voted for a guy 4 years ago who said he would have the government take over our healthcare. The government is mostly men. So everyone screams “dont tell me what to do with my body!” then say “the government should give us healthcare!”

themidwesterngiant:

steve, i feel you are illequipped to make this statement. illequipped meaning YOU LACK A VAGINA.

spacerobot5:

I don’t need a vagina to point out this fallacy. If ladies don’t want men controlling these things then stop supporting state run healthcare and pay for it themselves. If they want it a personal issue, I could care less. Just stop asking other people to pay for it. Sorry, but I’m not sorry.

First of all, the “vast majority of [us]” voted for Obama? Pretty sure the 56% of women who voted Dem. in 2008 doesn’t count as a vast majority, if we’re talking about fallacies here. Second of all, you’re confusing having state-run healthcare with proper access to healthcare. You’re not exactly specific here, but I’m assuming you’re on about the requirement to provide birth control to women working for organizations who might not have access to meds due to religious restrictions. Though technically, yes, the women getting BC via (private, by the way) healthcare, most likely wouldn’t be paying the full cost, a lower price isn’t exactly the reason this regulation was even needed. It was because without it, some women wouldn’t have any chance of having access to it.

Notice the “private healthcare” in parentheses, by the way. This doesn’t have anything at all to do with state-run healthcare. Your whole argument is invalidated by your own poor reasoning skills. “So everyone screams “don’t tell me what to do with my body!” then say “the government should give us healthcare!” What does this even mean? Nothing. Seriously. I cannot fathom what your line of reasoning is here or what you even mean. Are you saying these two things are mutually exclusive? Are you saying it’s unreasonable to assume that the government can do two good things at a time?

Lastly, no, you don’t need a vagina to side on this issue. But you do need the logic part of your brain to be working. It’s a non sequitur to even bring up Obama in this argument, and just plain wrong to say that voting for Obama and state healthcare is equal to giving up your right to have access to basic medication. If you’re not going to bother putting any sort of thought into something you clearly don’t really understand, then I’d at least suggest putting some thought into posting it on the internet for everyone to read your vitriol.

internerd: ronworkman: I swear it wasn’t me… God’s work Ron…...

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:09:04 -0600

internerd:

ronworkman:

I swear it wasn’t me…

God’s work Ron… God’s work

teehee.

kristin @ tumblr: Excuse me, I thought it was the future.

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:03:04 -0600

kristin @ tumblr: Excuse me, I thought it was the future.:

kristinvamenta:

Friends, Virginians, Countrymen — if you’re not paying attention to HB 1 and HB 462, please do.

HB 1, which was passed yesterday in the House of Delegates, grants “the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens,…

“Clearly the fetus is more important [than the mother].

Unless, of course, it develops into a female who wants to terminate a pregnancy — then those rights, privileges, and immunities granted to residents of the commonwealth go right out the window.”

Ha. a wonderful point.

internerd: The person who used the ATM before me left their...

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:05:27 -0600

internerd:

The person who used the ATM before me left their receipt in the machine. Who the fuck has $80k in their checking account?? 😳 #you’rethe1% (Taken with Instagram at Wells Fargo ATM)

I actually said “fuck you person!” out loud upon seeing this pic. Ugh.