Lurker > smoliske

smoliske posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

cuttin_in_farm posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Got a ticket once for going 82 in a 55.

Except that 55 was a fucking Highway at 9pm in the farthest left lane.


The fuck out of here. I'm not driving slow as shit in a place designated as the fast and where pedestrians are excluded.

9pm.... when the animals are starting to move?

You mean the ones that don't exist? Or the ones where going 5-10 mph slower would still cause an accident?

In light traffic, the typical speed cars go are 70-80 mph on highways. Even police. This is the first cop to give a fuck. Literally had a quota to meet.

I'm not stupid. I'm not going to be the lone speed demon on the road.

Animals don't exist where you live?

The vehicles going slower have a better chance to stop/avoid if an animal runs out, and will actually take less damage if a hit occurs.

yeah no if you hit a deer it's going to fuck up your day no matter what speed you're going

Nope. I suggest you look up basic physics.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Got a ticket once for going 82 in a 55.

Except that 55 was a fucking Highway at 9pm in the farthest left lane.


The fuck out of here. I'm not driving slow as shit in a place designated as the fast and where pedestrians are excluded.

9pm.... when the animals are starting to move?

You mean the ones that don't exist? Or the ones where going 5-10 mph slower would still cause an accident?

In light traffic, the typical speed cars go are 70-80 mph on highways. Even police. This is the first cop to give a fuck. Literally had a quota to meet.

I'm not stupid. I'm not going to be the lone speed demon on the road.

Animals don't exist where you live?

The vehicles going slower have a better chance to stop/avoid if an animal runs out, and will actually take less damage if a hit occurs.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Got a ticket once for going 82 in a 55.

Fair

Well you can get sick from consuming human blood...

Oh and just FYI, here's the official explanation on the jw.org website for why they abstain from blood:

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-about-blood-transfusion/

So yeah, it boils down to two things, kind of:

1. There are direct commands in the Bible to not eat blood.

2. Blood is viewed as sacred to God, which somehow means you can't use it for things (and I will personally add that it is apparently more sacred to him than actual literal life, which I simply can't understand.)

The Bible commands that we not ingest blood. So we should not accept whole blood or its primary components in any form, whether offered as food or as a transfusion. Note the following scriptures:

Genesis 9:4. God allowed Noah and his family to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood but commanded them not to eat the blood. God told Noah: “"Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat."” This command applies to all mankind from that time on because all are descendants of Noah.

Leviticus 17:14. “"You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off."” God viewed the soul, or life, as being in the blood and belonging to him. Although this law was given only to the nation of Israel, it shows how seriously God viewed the law against eating blood.

Acts 15:20. “"Abstain . . . from blood."” God gave Christians the same command that he had given to Noah. History shows that early Christians refused to consume whole blood or even to use it for medical reasons.

Why does God command us to abstain from blood?

There are sound medical reasons to avoid blood transfusions. More important, though, God commands that we abstain from blood because what it represents is sacred to him.—Leviticus 17:11; Colossians 1:20.

smoliske posted...

OrangeWizard posted...

smoliske posted...

I would argue that sustaining life is a rather sacred use of blood and 99% of religious interpretations of the Word of God would see blood transfusion as an acceptable practice that does not fall under "consuming the blood of an animal". Jehovah's Witnesses are the vocal minority in this regard.

Sure, you would argue that, but we respect the Bible as a higher authority, and we are not concerned with what the other 99% think.

The other 99% have their own interpretation of the Written Word, missing the point.

What about the hundred different factions of Catholics that are split into said factions because they interrupted something different and separated from Catholicism? Let's break them down into percentages too, as they also respect the bible as a higher authority. It doesn't matter if it is 0.5% or 99.5% most all Christian religions have separated or started their own faction because of a disagreement in bible scripture interpretation.

smoliske posted...

I would argue that sustaining life is a rather sacred use of blood and 99% of religious interpretations of the Word of God would see blood transfusion as an acceptable practice that does not fall under "consuming the blood of an animal". Jehovah's Witnesses are the vocal minority in this regard.

Sure, you would argue that, but we respect the Bible as a higher authority, and we are not concerned with what the other 99% think.

smoliske posted...

Therein lies the idiocy. Interpretation by man.

As opposed to...what, divine revelation?

Consuming a substance means you are eating or drinking said substance.

It goes slightly deeper than that. It's not only about physical consumption. The whole doctrine does not hang upon one single word. It's the whole consideration of what blood is, and how it is treated, that brings us to this conclusion.

Blood is treated as something sacred in the scriptures, and it only had a limited number of uses. Blood was seen as life, and life belongs to Jehovah. In one account, some soldiers risked their lives, without being asked, to fetch water for their thirsty leader. Upon receiving it, he poured the water on the ground, regarding it as the blood of the men who risked their lives for it. Life, that is to say, blood itself, should not be used, risked, so carelessly.

Any use of blood contrary to what was explicitly approved was forbidden. This is not an explicitly approved use, and therefore, it is forbidden.

If, for example, there were a decoration, dye, or paint, made or derived from blood, Jehovah's Witnesses would steer clear of it. If there was a technology fueled by it, we would not use it.

And are you not also giving your own "interpretation by man", when you disagree with us?

MysticMismagius posted...

OrangeWizard posted...

unpleasant_milk posted...

If the child can be saved quite easily, then denying that life saving treatment makes the death needless.

That isn't an assumption. That's a fact.

And that keeps you from understanding

"You don't understand"

THEN EXPLAIN IT.

I know we just had the whole "don't mansplaine a religion" talk, but hell I was one of them so it's not mansplaining when I do it. :P

There is a law in the old testament to not consume the blood of an animal. You'd have to first drain the animal of all blood after killing it before you eat it. This law was later made still in effect after Paul (was it Paul? One of them, I forget which one), wrote letters to other congregations in books that are included in the new testament, to keep obstaining from blood. So it's viewed as a direct commend from god, still. The JWs believe transfusions count as consuming the blood, so if a person, even a child, took a transfusion, he would lose everlasting life on earth. So to OrangeWizard here, it wouldn't be a needless death at all. Quite the opposite, it would HAVE to happen, because he would want his child to attain everlasting life in a paradise. It would be hard, but it would be an act of love and devotion to his god, and an act that would ensure the life and happiness of his theoretical child.

That's the explaination, with no spin, no criticism, no bias.

spanky1 posted...

I just see people asking him questions, not telling him how his religion is supposed to work.

I've only been asked two questions iirc. Have I missed any?

smoliske posted...

it's the one religion than makes no sense

None of them make much sense, friend.

GregShmedley posted...

All hail Black Pope lseem.

EXCLUSIVE: Add Pope Francis to Netflix’s continually growing TV and movie roster names. The streaming service is moving forward with the feature film The Pope, with Jonathan Pryce tapped to play the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, and Anthony Hopkins in talks to play his predecessor Pope Benedict. The film will be directed by City of God helmer Fernando Meirelles, has a script by Anthony McCarten, who wrote The Theory of Everything about Stephen Hawking and the upcoming Darkest Hour with Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill. McCarten adapted his stage play. Dan Lin is producing with Jonathan Eirich, and Tracey Seaward. Filming will begin November in Argentina.

The film tells the story of Pope Benedict’s election, and his subsequent resignation from the papacy. That opened the door for Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Argentinian Cardinal who became the first Jesuit pope, the first from the Americas and the first Pope from outside Europe since the 8th Century. The drama conveys his reluctance to take the top post in 2013. His humility and devotion to the poor has made him a galvanizing force for tolerance and change.

Pryce is an intriguing choice to play him. He is coming off Game of Thrones, where he played High Sparrow, the leader of a fictional faith movement, who became more intoxicated with power than piety before his character exited the show last season in rather shocking fashion. He is repped by UTA and Julian Belfrage Associates, LBI Entertainment reps Meirelles and McCarten is repped by ICM Partners. Hopkins is repped by UTA and Independent Talent.

My date had other ideas. Being an amateur gymnast, she was convinced that she could reach into the window and pull the poo out, using the tried and tested "inside out bag as glove" technique. Unfortunately she couldn't reach. She climbed further in and had the same problem. Eventually I agreed to give her a boost up and into the window.

She climbed in head first after her own turd, reached deeper into the window, bagged it up, and passed it out, over the top and back into the toilet from whence it came. She called out to me to help her climb out from the window, I grabbed her waist and pulled. But she was stuck. Try as we might, we could not remove her from the window. She was upside down in the gap.

Unfortunately for my date, at this stage I could see only one way out of our predicament. She had been upside down in the window for around 15 minutes at this point, and I was starting to grow concerned for her health. I called the fire brigade.

Bristol's finest were on scene sirens blaring in a matter of minutes. Once they had composed themselves after surveying the scene in front of them, they set to work removing my date from the window using all of their special firemen hammers and tools. It took them about 15 minutes.

Unfortunately, although they rescued my date unharmed from what must have been a rather unpleasant confined space to find yourself in, in the process they had to completely destroy the window with their special fire tools.

Avon Fire and Rescue service confirmed: We received a call at 22:41 to one female trapped between interior and exterior glass.

Two crews were sent from Temple station and she was rescued using hand tools.

Liam told the Bristol post that despite his date’s awkward ending he did see the woman again.

"We did go and meet for a drink to discuss setting up the crowdfunder," he said.

"She's a lovely girl – I'm not sure what’s going to happen – I'm really busy with my dissertation at the moment but I'd certainly be open to seeing her again."

Firefighters were called after a woman ended up stuck upside down hanging out of a window after she got wedged while trying to retrieve a poo.

Emergency services were forced to destroy the window of her date Liam’s student house in the process, but the poo was rescued.

Liam, who studying postgraduate sociology at Bristol University, told the story on a crowd funding page to raise money for a new window:

I recently took a girl I met on tinder to Nandos. We had a lovely night, and enjoyed each other’s company. After our meal, we repaired back to my house for a bottle of wine and a scientology documentary. About an hour in the date got up to use the toilet. She returned with a panicked look in her eye, and told me she had something to tell me.

'I went for a poo in your toilet', she told me 'and it would not flush. I don't know why I did this, but I panicked', she continued 'I reached into the toilet bowl, wrapped it in tissue paper, and threw it out of the window'.

I was understandably concerned, and told her we would go outside, bag up the offending poo in the garden, bin it, and pretend the whole sorry affair had never happened.

Unfortunately, owing to a design quirk of my house, the toilet window does not in fact open to the garden, but instead into a narrow gap of about a foot and a half, separated from the outside world by another (non-opening) double glazed window. It was into this twilight zone that my date had thrown her poo.

As can be seen in the picture, the inside window opens at the top, into the gap that is separated from the garden by a non-opening double-glazed window pane. Seeing only one solution, I messaged our house group-chat, and went upstairs to find a hammer and chisel to smash open the window.

Wear a good fitting one and you'll realize after a few days that it improves blood flow to the area and that actually promotes further growth. Also, increased beneficial sensitivity.

like Disney

I posted all the time and was still kicked wtf

Hoth has no alts.

smoliske posted...

guess you'll need to find a degenerate to sleep with then

listen here you little shit

q:

You're a dude aren't you?

Wonder how the Bran / Jaime reunion will go next season