Today, I literally shit my pants.
David Cross does a great bit about the misuse of "literally" where a guy is talking about laughing so hard "that he literally shit his pants." "What did you do with your pants? - I didn't actually shit my pants. ..." It's pretty damn funny, but it's even funnier when you actually, literally, really shit your pants.
I was meeting my friend for coffee when it went down. Fortunately my apartment is steps away from the coffee shop. I immediately turned around and started walking back to my apartment to get some new pants and started laughing to myself. By the time I was in the bathroom for a quick lower-half shower I was laughing out loud. As I walked back to the coffee shop I was laughing and crying so much that I thought my neighbors would be concerned if they saw me. When I tried to tell my friends what happened it took me about five minutes to be able to speak without uncontrollable laughter prohibiting all of my speech functions. It was awesome.
The funny thing here (and mind you, it's not ironic) is that the cause and effect seem to be reversible. The pants-shitting induces laughter as strongly as laughter allegedly causes pants-shitting.
"Dude, I shat my pants so hard I literally laughed out loud!"
Monday, December 24, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Funny Hillbilly Kid
You might curse me for making fun of this little hillbilly kid, but I don't care--it's just too funny. I totally appreciate his loss, but the whole conversation together with the music (even the graphics are funny) is so bible belt comedy.
The thing I've never understood is that people claim that God understands their loss because "God gave his son to die on the cross." Jesus was dead for like a day and a half (although he claimed that he would be dead for three days and three nights.) For an infinite being, that doesn't seem like a long enough time to really miss your son, especially when you know that he is going to be alive again before church on Sunday morning. This makes the concept of "substitutionary atonement"--the idea that by Jesus dying, he took the punishment for all of humanity--seem pretty silly as well. Humans are all evil and deserve to burn in Hell for eternity (sorry, that's just the way God made it), but Jesus, by dying (but not really, because he was alive again a couple days later; and, I don't think he spent any time in hell) made up for it all? All of Christianity is based on this idea, yet it doesn't make much sense.
The thing I've never understood is that people claim that God understands their loss because "God gave his son to die on the cross." Jesus was dead for like a day and a half (although he claimed that he would be dead for three days and three nights.) For an infinite being, that doesn't seem like a long enough time to really miss your son, especially when you know that he is going to be alive again before church on Sunday morning. This makes the concept of "substitutionary atonement"--the idea that by Jesus dying, he took the punishment for all of humanity--seem pretty silly as well. Humans are all evil and deserve to burn in Hell for eternity (sorry, that's just the way God made it), but Jesus, by dying (but not really, because he was alive again a couple days later; and, I don't think he spent any time in hell) made up for it all? All of Christianity is based on this idea, yet it doesn't make much sense.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Story of Stuff
This video, The Story of Stuff is worth the twenty minutes it will take to watch. It may be nothing new for you, but it is very well made and offers some solutions with its accompanying website. Watch it and feel free to comment.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Christians suck
I read the Christian Defense Coalition's press release in response to the shootings in CO today. Complete insanity. These fundies love lying to each other to try to propagate fear within their own ranks. It's totally fucking insane. The reaction from Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney of the CDC:
"These deaths in Colorado highlight the fact that Christians and churches are the overwhelming target of violent hate crimes in America."
It is irrelevant to the post, but I believe the shooter was brought up in a Christian home, home-schooled by fundamentalist parents and had enrolled in some kind of missions training program. (I don't think we can blame Richard Dawkins or Philip Pullman for this one.)
I expected some odd reactions from the evangelical crowd, but I didn't expect the kind of deluded or deceptive kind of response that these people would give. These kinds of statements are just preaching to the choir, but this one seems more like lying to the choir (maybe this shouldn't be so surprising.)
"Most would believe that the groups or facilities most likely to be targets of hate crimes are persons of color, gays, Muslims or abortion clinics. The reason for that is the national press, media, elected officials and special interest groups focus, dramatize and over report when those groups and facilities are subjected to violent acts."
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, "most" Americans are right and the CDC is dead wrong. Here are some numbers for bias motivated incidents from 2006 (from the FBI Hate Crime Statistics site):
Anti-Protestant 59
Anti-Catholic 76
(these two are probably mostly perpetrated against each other)
Anti-Islamic 156
Anti-Homosexual 1,169
Race Motivated 4,000
I don't think bombing an abortion clinic is a hate crime; I think it is terrorism - a term Christians don't readily use to describe their own crimes.
It is truly sad to see that there were any, but there were more hate crimes against people with mental disabilities (62) than there were against Protestants.
These people influence the vast majority of America, they lie to everyone including each other, they act like they are a persecuted minority while they preach un-acceptance of others, and they just generally suck ass.
"These deaths in Colorado highlight the fact that Christians and churches are the overwhelming target of violent hate crimes in America."
It is irrelevant to the post, but I believe the shooter was brought up in a Christian home, home-schooled by fundamentalist parents and had enrolled in some kind of missions training program. (I don't think we can blame Richard Dawkins or Philip Pullman for this one.)
I expected some odd reactions from the evangelical crowd, but I didn't expect the kind of deluded or deceptive kind of response that these people would give. These kinds of statements are just preaching to the choir, but this one seems more like lying to the choir (maybe this shouldn't be so surprising.)
"Most would believe that the groups or facilities most likely to be targets of hate crimes are persons of color, gays, Muslims or abortion clinics. The reason for that is the national press, media, elected officials and special interest groups focus, dramatize and over report when those groups and facilities are subjected to violent acts."
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, "most" Americans are right and the CDC is dead wrong. Here are some numbers for bias motivated incidents from 2006 (from the FBI Hate Crime Statistics site):
Anti-Protestant 59
Anti-Catholic 76
(these two are probably mostly perpetrated against each other)
Anti-Islamic 156
Anti-Homosexual 1,169
Race Motivated 4,000
I don't think bombing an abortion clinic is a hate crime; I think it is terrorism - a term Christians don't readily use to describe their own crimes.
It is truly sad to see that there were any, but there were more hate crimes against people with mental disabilities (62) than there were against Protestants.
These people influence the vast majority of America, they lie to everyone including each other, they act like they are a persecuted minority while they preach un-acceptance of others, and they just generally suck ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
