"People said that Mel Gibson couldn't play a Scotsman in Braveheart. But look at him now! An alcoholic racist."
- Frankie Boyle
Sounds like a future congressman
I'm honestly surprised he hasn't run for office now that you mention it.
Gibson
Rogan
2028
We need a ROAD WARRIOR to survive this American wasteland.
Joe Rogan would be like the Coma-Doof Warrior. But instead of a guitar shooting flames, he'd have a podcast mic shooting fart gas that he would just yell nonsensical phrases into just to make noise. Well Mel Gibson is driving him around town with a literal horse strapped to the front injected with ivermectin and main lined into Mel's veins as a blood bag. The horse would have lines from the Book of Revelation tattooed all over it.There still a few years until the apocalypse is really in full swing.
Mel Gibson is the kind of "Christian" that has a meltdown if anybody dares to point out that Jesus most likely didn't have blonde hair and blue eyes.
Or any of the leftist ideas their savior was putting forward.
Dude goes to a 'catholic' church that he fully funds himself as he's deeply against Vatican II, and the pope.
I'm pretty sure Joe Rogan and Mel Gibson believe that those massive fires are caused by liberal CA government.
Actually the line is DEI is what caused the massive fires.
The fire marshall or something was LGBTQ.
Yeah their strategy seems to be sniping out folks at the top (politically speaking) by singling them out & turning the State propaganda machine on full blast, alienating them & forcing them to defend themselves when no one else has the time or energy because, you know, everything is literally on fire.
Pretty gross & probably a preview of the next (at least) 4 years. I hope it fails.
Last time I looked they were (seriously) blaming Native Americans for the LA fires.
Right, so the liberal government...
Maybe those super secret space laser are real after all.
Liar liar house on fire
In case nobody's said it yet.
Well done.
As a Jewish person I find that absolutely hilarious. For over two thousand years the foundation of Judaism has been the exact opposite. Nearly everything in the torah has been interpreted, reinterpreted, and then we fight over who has the best interpretations (of course some things can be viewed on a literal level but those are interpreted on multiple other levels as well). Also despite Christians stealing nearly everything from us Hell isn't one of them, I have no idea where they got that (probrally the pagans).
Did you know as a Jewish person, you are responsible for all the wars in the world? Because Mel seems to think so.
(I'm also Jewish, so I guess I'm also responsible. Must be our space lasers.)
Hmmm, must be the death star of David :3
While my wife and I were evangelical Christians in college we attended a few Jewish events for part of a religious study class she was taking. That is definitely what stood out to me, too. While it's difficult to really make definitive statements about Christianity as a whole because it's so varied, the type we were familiar with from our Bible belt upbringing was definitely more about a pretty literal interpretation about everything. It was very fascinating to learn that Jewish people are much more practical about their interpretation. For context, growing up I'd say a good bit of the people in my church viewed remarrying after divorce as adultery because marriage is meant to be forever.
One thing I remember finding fascinating was like the layers of annotations on scripture. Like people would annotate annotations with their responses and stuff.
The Talmud, which is basically a bunch of Rabbis arguing about what the Torah means, is almost as important as the Torah itself.
There's a famous phrase in Jewish culture: two Jews, three opinions.
It's been the same with Christianity for most of the 2000 years it has existed. Christians had so many different interpretations they have been split up into splinter groups as early as 30 years after Jesus death.
Literalism is a pretty new concept, rougthly from the late 19th century.
If anybody is interested about the history, I can recomend Center Place`s newest video, a progressive church that has a lot of historical and very scholary lectures about Christianity and Judaism (no preaching or converting). Their lectures playlist is a treasure. And I say this as a very much not Christian or Jewish person.
That doesnt sound very similar (or the same), in Judaism while there are many different factions its not only common but encuraged for people within a faction to disagree on interpretation. Jewish schools teach the art of studying torah, understanding torah, interpreting the torah, and then arguing over said interpretations.
Christianity is fear, and Judaism is clever loopholes. Fear you will go to hell versus you'll get into the kingdom eventually, one way or another.
Well I certainly hope Mel gets to put his medical advice to the test on himself.
Just like Joe he'll admit he's getting the same treatment any doctor would recommend, and he'll take Ivermectin on top and when he's better, he'll claim it was the horse dewormer that fought the cancer.
You're probably right. But if there's a slim chance the man "Jobs" himself...
Poor, poor Mel boy. He is in dire need of mental help and adult supervision.
i guess you could say his house’s climate changed that day
"This is fine."
Aw it was sad that all of Mel's Nazi memorabilia burned to a crisp.
The house was a non-issue since he was probably being paid enough from the performance to buy a bigger one.
Some niggling part of my brain keeps wondering if ivermectin is actually a crazy cure for cancer, could anyone break down the science for me? I have a decent understanding of molecular biology, but no idea about what ivermectin is chemically or how it would play in
It kills parasitic infections caused by worms. Cancer is not a parasitic infection caused by a worm. It's like asking if a mouse trap can fix climate change. No, because they are in no way related.
If you want to know the specific mechanism involved, it has to do with properties worms have but mammals don't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#Mechanism_of_action
It kills parasitic infections caused by worms. Cancer is not a parasitic infection caused by a worm. It’s like asking if a mouse trap can fix climate change. No, because they are in no way related.
That's not a convincing argument. It suffices to say that ivermectin was considered as a candidate for a cancer drug as early as 2018, with a proposed mechanism of action and everything. It's not as simple as "cancer is not a parasitic infection", because pharmacology is never this simple. That paper also mentions positive study results both in vitro and in vivo. There is also a lot of later research (search
ivermectin canceron google scholar), but it's potentially biased by the horrifying memetic war that happened in America during the covid pandemic.My conclusion from ten minutes of googling is that quite possibly it's a real weak anti-cancer drug much like the already-known ones. It's hard to be sure of those things - we're in an age where there's enough research and publication bias and politics that you can't trust individual studies1. And you can't fully trust meta-analyses either, but I can't even find a meta-analysis of ivermectin as used for cancer, so.
(It's pretty safe to say that it's not an amazing cancer drug much better than all existing ones (like some people seem to think) - both on priors, and because if that was the case it'd be extremely obvious from all of the studies already made.)
1 I don't mean fraud, I mean that if a hundred teams over the globe try a study of something that doesn't work, five of them will find p<0.05 results by pure chance and quite possibly only those teams will publish it - so until several good replications come along, it'll look like there's a real and well-supported effect. And there can be much subtler problems than this - see, say, how well the studies of psychic powers go.
Odds are great that a person set the fire regardless of climate impact. Most sources I see say that climate change is the reason for the fire, and not necessarily pointing out that it's human influence that starts it. Climate change just helps spread the fire.
First we need to convince dumb motherfuckers to stop setting fires or shooting fireworks in dry seasons. Also (IMO) people who set fires that cause this much damage and loss of life should be executed by being burned at the stake
First, there are several fires, it's not one big one. A video cropped up showing a fire starting at the base of an Edison transmission line tower as the start of the Eaton fire. Whether that's the cause remains to be seen. The only almost confirmed arson was the Sunset fire (Hollywood Hills).
Even then, So Cal is on a record dry streak at the moment, with something like less than a quarter inch of rain since last May. Then the Santa Ana winds came, with a vengeance (75 mph sustained winds in some areas). When these winds come, humidity drops to near zero. All it takes is a tree knocking into a boulder, setting it loose down a hill, smacking a boulder and creating a spark that ignites already dry brush. We are already in the middle of a La Nina year (little to no precipitation), though the Santa Ana winds happen all the time, caused by high pressure in the Great Basin in northern Nevada with low pressure off the coast. Not staying climate change isn't a root cause of the intensity of these factors, but So Cal has a history of all these conditions.
The impact of fires started by human error is increased due to climate change. Drier vegetation (and being dry in general) making for faster burning and more violent fires.
Please show us these odds.
I was curious too. The US National Parks Service states that 85% of wildfires are caused by humans.
Odds are great that a person set the fire regardless of climate impact.
I mean, that's kinda redundant...... That's unless you had previously thought it had been lightning on a clear day, or maybe Bambi with a Zippo.
Unless you are proposing that we have a zero open flame policy in one of the most populated states in America....... Then I really don't see the benefit of blaming any single individual.
People have been lighting fires in California for thousands of years, the reason they are no longer manageable is because of climate change, and because we refuse to spend the time and money on land management.
people who set fires that cause this much damage and loss of life should be executed by being burned at the stake
And then no one ever made a fire again and everyone clapped.....
This would do literally nothing to curtail wildfires in the future. I mean the last big one was started by an electric companies faulty equipment. Are we executing the power grid next?
