Best products from r/facepalm

We found 29 comments on r/facepalm discussing the most recommended products. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 202 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

Top comments mentioning products on r/facepalm:

u/I_Flip_Burgers · 3 pointsr/facepalm

> Dinosaurs contradict creation theory.

Possibly. But many branches of Christianity do not endorse YEC.

> Evolution contradicts 'god made humans to be above all others', since our ascendance is based on (essentially) chance.

For some this is true. But again, many Christians are theistic evolutionists.

> Other planets and the nigh-certainty of extraterrestrial life contradicts 'god made earth/the entire universe. The (measurable!) Big Bang theory already does that though, of course.

I don't see the contradiction unless you mean that it contradicts that God made the universe specifically for human beings. In that case, this is a point of contention that was shared by many early natural philosophers, even non-Christians. The Ptolemaic geocentric system of the universe was valued because it put human beings at the center (among other reasons). But, this seems to be a problem less about Christianity and more about human importance in general.

> If Christianity is not the first religion, it suggests that people will make up origin stories to comfort themselves, and Christianity is just one of them. This is of course a different branch of science (anthropology I think?), but a valid one afaik.

Good point. There is a reason why anthropology has one of the lowest proportions of religious people of the scientific disciplines. But, a religious person could argue that people generate origin stories so as to fill a God-instilled void in themselves (I am not making this argument, I'm just saying that it is a possible one).

> Furthermore, if God made the world and everything in it, why would he a) make other religions; and b) let people carry on for thousands of years without knowing about God, and in fact believing in the wrong gods. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Good point, but this is venturing beyond science into theology.

> Now I agree every single one of those points can be refuted if you try hard enough. The point is though, you have to try.
In order to refute the points above, you have to decide that the first christians were flat-out wrong in taking the bible factually and that it was always meant to be allegorical.

Good points, and this is why some Christians have such difficulty with certain scientific discoveries. If one holds a literal interpretation of the Bible, it is much harder to reconcile modern science with Christianity. But, is this a flaw in Christianity itself or a flaw in certain human doctrines about Christianity? Personally, I do not see logical inconsistency with people who adjust their doctrine according to new scientific discoveries. In the book I linked, several of the authors discuss how Christianity helped shape modern science, but the inverse can also be true; science can help shape Christian theology. Isaac Newton, who is "Mr. Science" for many and often used as the posterboy for atheism, invoked the concept and several attributes of the Christian God to explain several of his scientific findings in his Letters and General Scholium. But, he also made theological arguments about the nature of Christ and the timeline of Christ's return based on his scientific beliefs. Adapting one's beliefs according to new evidence is never a bad thing in science or theology.

> I could also bring up the fact there are other religions in the world today, and THEY all claim to be the only one. Or the fact that kids who are taught things at an early age internalise them. Or the fact that there is no such thing as a miracle with evidence and that they haven't happened since the advent of portable cameras.

These are interesting arguments, but again, they are theological (or at least philosophical) ones, not scientific ones.

> There are other arguments of course. But I think it comes down to this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim of an omnipotent being in the sky watching us, leaving us entirely alone, and judging us when we die is an incredibly extraordinary claim with an equally extraordinary amount of evidence and logic stacked against it - and frankly, not much for it.
If you, claiming to believe in science, can see all the evidence and still believe in God...there's a problem. They are mutually exclusive.

Here, you hit on the primary conflict that people perceive between science and Christianity. How do we find truth? In post-Baconian natural philosophy/science, evidence is seen as the gold standard for establishing truth. But, what is evidence? For a data scientist, evidence might be a statistically significant difference between two populations. For an evolutionary biologist, evidence might be certain aspects of the fossil record. In general terms, one may consider evidence to be the end result of an inductive line of reasoning or a correctly predicted outcome from a hypothetico-deductive reasoning. But, as it turns out, even these last two are not "proof" in the traditional sense (see The Problem of Induction and Hypothetic-deductive model Discussion. Many Christians also see evidence of God in nature. Francis Collins, for example, is a brilliant scientist who played a pivotal role in the Human Genome Project and is the director of the National Institutes of Health, and he sees evidence for God in evolution The Language of God. Does Collins offer evidence? You may not think so, but it is worth thinking about how his account is fundamentally different from "scientific evidence." Evidence is not a bad criterion to use for establishing truth, but there are many kinds of evidence, and very few forms of evidence provide logical proof. Now, I am not trying to discredit the value of a scientific approach for understanding truth; of course, such a method has proven to be incredibly useful for understanding and manipulating our world. However, I am suggesting that science, at least in the eyes of many people, does not hold sole authority over truth.

>I don't deny the profound effects christianity has had on the human race, including the development of science, literature, art and contribution to law and government. I just don't think it's real, nor do I think it's possible to logically reconcile belief in god with science

The great part about this debate is that you alone have sole jurisdiction over your own beliefs, and I certainly am not trying to convince you to think in another way. But, it is sometimes worth thinking about why so many people see science and Christianity in a different light.


I certainly understand the insistence that science and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible, but I hope that I have given you a few points to consider. If you are interested in this topic, it may be worth reading more about the relationship between science and Christianity. It's a great opportunity to be exposed to new ideas and to avoid falling into the historical fallacies that both Christians and non-Christians are prone to.

u/seeashbashrun · 1 pointr/facepalm

Okay! Took me a bit to find them (obscure clothing listings always have super unique names on Amazon, which can make a direct search pretty much fruitless lol). Here is the link: Cotton Boyshorts.

I am a size 2-6 and my roommate is a 4-8 (depending on brands), we both bought some mediums and found them to comfortable fit at mid-short length (between knees and hips). Other brands I tried definitely rolled up like crazy and/or were super painful! I am not sure what size you are/prefer, but for us the price and fit have been awesome!

Some reviewers complained that they are too sheer for stand-alone shorts(?), but I generally do not wear them as regular shorts except at home, and I have not had any issues with sheerness wearing the mediums. I think it's possible those women may have ordered sizes too small or tried wearing the lighter colors alone? As leggings, with appropriate underwear, they have been awesome for me, and my roommate also really likes the ones she got. Some colors are cheaper than others. Amazon has a good return policy for their 'fulfilled' sellers, so if you don't like them they will take them back.

Edit: I will add my review to the list now that I've bothered writing this out! lol

u/GreeneMan · 3 pointsr/facepalm

Just passed Sec+ last week. I’m military so it doesn’t do me much good in a civilian sector (at the moment,) but I know people that get it and are able to get well-paying jobs right off the bat. It’s definitely difficult, but easily passable. If you’re interested, I recommend the Darril Gibson book. Took a nine day course studying that, and passed with almost no professional IT experience.


Best of luck to you and I highly recommend getting more certs!

u/RileyFenn · 23 pointsr/facepalm

>My paper has nothing to do with section 8 or chapter 8.

That's good. Please don't try to claim to know about either.

>PTSD is heavily linked to batshit crazy. But I do know the difference.

No. No. It's not. PTSD is the human psyche's response to an unnatural situation. It's a coping mechanism. It is 180* from batshit crazy. Please - if you are going to write this paper? Get some good sources... On Killing is a good place to start and then you can google your local county's vet rep (usually unemployment offices in the county will have one) and then? Get you head out of you ass.

>No, I have not "served", but I have enlisted. So officially, I am in the military. Or air force, if you will.

OMG. PLEASE go tell someone serving that you made it through MEPS so you're in the military. Please tell someone from another branch - or shit - go talk to another recruiter from another branch - and tell them you're "in the military" because you processed for the Air Force.

You do know that untill you're at basic that there isn't anything anyone can do to you, right? You may be a DEP but that is just a piece of paper and a promise to your recruiter. No one is going to show up if you don't go into your little admin job for the Air Force in a couple of months.... but - good on ya! I'm so proud that some little college kid thinks he's special because he signed a piece of paper and now he's "in the military." LOL

>My paper will have nothing to do with my experience.

That's good. Because you don't have any but apparently you think that anyone with PTSD is batshit crazy? Hmmm... are you a little biased? Wow. You will have some fun with your Top 3.

>Its solely based on my research and veterans testimony's.

"veteran testimony" is what you meant to type. You need to read some real world resources and not think PTSD is a mental disease. It's a normal response to an abnormal situation. Until you understand that? I can't help you


Thanks for thinking you're in the military and you can "speak for us".... SMH....

u/AutismAmmo · 1 pointr/facepalm

Probably a more appropriate Technics OEM mat.

For my next label I plan to give the water to clean things. Thats really cool im glad to see you're still around! he has an AR15, a shotgun may be a win condition too.

These sound so cute!!! :)

> Also does anyone else hear Flight of the Dragon and put her behind the scenes news and action from the companies. This was funny. They have thus thing against dark skin, leading to either a black leopard or a black eye in my picture, but they have happened. Women are not to say Penny is a riser. Would be a fun twist, IMO. Even better that they are unbelievably flexible rules, and lives built around ~1000s of years. Which would reveal the vast amount of information to follow. Granted, is also fondly known as Chores Online) and highly punishing in how time passing can cause decay, and spontaneous fission are all the portable chargers and android cables. Other than Barrett or Mike Harcourt provincially, they have depth in the front). It's like looking into a subject. Placebo is a real difference.

source: ex overwatch player

u/Servalpur · 15 pointsr/facepalm

Well I'm glad I helped, but don't think you need to spend a whole bunch of cash to get something good. This Stanley multitool is sturdy and only costs like $13-$20 depending on your location. It's not flashy or anything, but it'll get the job done and last a while as long as you aren't using it all day every day like if you're in construction or something.

If you don't mind spending a little money and want something that'll last forever, the Leatherman Wave is anywhere from $50-$90 (depending on where you buy, and if you can find a deal. You very often can if you look). It's incredibly well built, keeps an edge very well, and is very ergonomic. It has a 25 year warranty as well, just in case something goes wrong.

u/SwellJoe · 1 pointr/facepalm

That's weird. Where do you live?

Toaster ovens can be bought at damned near any store (that carries kitchen appliance-y things) for about $20 in the US. I've used the same $20 toaster oven for about ten years, and it still works fine (it's getting pretty ugly with age, but is still functional). They aren't difficult to find; any store that sells kitchen appliances, even just a small selection of them, will have at least a couple of toaster ovens on the shelves. Walmart, Target, etc. all usually carry a few toaster ovens beside the toasters. I could have a new one in ten minutes in any city in the country, if mine broke and I had a toasting emergency.

Amazon has a decent looking one here for $22. There's cheaper even than that, but it's a brand I don't know, so wouldn't want to recommend it. Oster makes pretty good stuff, and it has good reviews.

Sure, you can spend more, but if you spend over $50 you should get one with convection oven features; that's about the low price point for a decent convection/toaster oven in the US. A convection oven has an air circulating fan that makes things cook (even) faster and more evenly. I plan to get a convection model next time I replace my toaster oven, so I'll spend over $50, but you definitely don't have to. Amazon has this beauty for only $54.

Man, I really like toaster ovens. I can't believe I'm still ranting about toaster ovens on the internet.

u/BallShapedMan · 1 pointr/facepalm

I know I'm late to the party, if this gets under your skin read Lies my Teacher Told Me. The author reviews key points in history like this and what several history books say. Not only does it expand on this it goes deeper than what I thought I knew.

A great read I highly recommend!

u/_-_p · 2 pointsr/facepalm

>Same for people living in Louisiana and speaking French

Politics aside /u/I_value_my_shit_more you should check out The World That Made New Orleans; it does a good job at least in a small section of America of documenting how immigration has defined the culture there and helped evolve it to where it is today.

In the later chapters it focuses more on music, but the empirical historical stuff early on (starts in the 1400s) is pretty neat even if you don't give a shit about jazz.

u/Derkades · 10 pointsr/facepalm

Yes! Thank you for understanding. I think I'd actually be pretty useful to have. More pictures here: https://www.amazon.com/CHEEDAY-Anti-lost-Wireless-Bluetooth-Earphones/dp/B07193X2M8

u/Captain_Sabatini · 4 pointsr/facepalm

Are you sure you went to a Catholic school? I went through Catholic school and was taught the Big Bang theory in Theology as what most likely happened.

Was also taught natural selection and evolution in Biology.

>According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#337), the book of Genesis "symbolically" presents God's work of creation. In other words, the Biblical story of creation is like a parable in that the plot does not have to be literally true in order for the story to convey profound religious truths, such as the sequential and increasingly complex nature of God's creative activity. Interestingly, the idea of evolution seems to be supported by Genesis 1:24, which states, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures." Genesis does not say that God directly created plants and animals in their final form, only that they came forth from "the earth."

-Source

I would throw in more stuff but I am lazy and at work.

u/The10thAmendment · -3 pointsr/facepalm

“Whoever [in speaking to another person] is not committed to the truth—such a person, from that moment on, no longer considers the other as a partner, as equal. In fact, he no longer respects the other as a human person. . . . [The other person] becomes an object to be manipulated, possibly dominated.” -Josef Pieper

The point here being that it is easy for theists and atheists to pick out weak arguments and pretend that is the best the other side has to offer but that is intellectually dishonest. If you wish to be an atheist, that is your decision, but you should at least try to read and understand the best arguments from the other side before doing so.

https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Apologetics-Comprehensive-Biblical-Faith/dp/0830839356/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1501512539&sr=8-1&keywords=groothuis+christian+apologetics is a good book on the topic.

http://www.str.org/ is good if the previous read is too difficult for you.

u/[deleted] · 3 pointsr/facepalm

I also hate partisan politics.

But parties serve a purpose, and it is entirely rational to vote for a candidate simply because of their party if you feel that that party aligns well with your views. Moreover, no matter how you feel personally about a candidate, they will be beholden to their party and it doesn't make sense to vote for a candidate you happen to personally like who is part of a party you disagree with.

There is a lot of thought and writing in this direction. For example, check out http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0226012727

u/Snywalker · 2 pointsr/facepalm

I do audio work on the side, and have used many different headphones in the pursuit of the perfect pair. These Sennheisers hit the sweet spot in the Venn diagram of build quality, sound quality and bargain for the buck.

http://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-HD-280-Pro-Headphones/dp/B000065BPB/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1457424789&sr=8-12&keywords=sennheiser

u/kvitrafn · 2 pointsr/facepalm

It's pretty straight forward and a pretty interesting read. Take a look at the user reviews before you decide whether to buy. I certainly enjoyed it!

http://amzn.com/1591430372

Just so we are clear - these are his personal theories, which make a lot of sense but also attracts aggressive criticism. (Which by it self might indicate he is onto something if you ask me)

u/dode74 · 2 pointsr/facepalm

The "right" conclusion? We're back to objective morality again...

I'm semi-serious. It may well be the case that eating vegetables is also considered barbaric. However, I'm not the one claiming equivalency between plant life and animal life. Taking your own argument to the logical conclusion, though, does it not make more sense to simply commit suicide? After all, if you will eat many thousands of plants in your lifetime then you are better off minimizing those plant casualties by dying early. Since that's plainly an absurd position, I posit that there is not an equivalence: not all lives are equal.

That said, the current state of neuroscience is not the end-state of neuroscience. Studies suggest there may well be plant intelligence. To rely on the current state of a branch of science as your bedrock for an apparently objective morality is flawed due to the inherent mutability of scientific knowledge. As the science changes your morality will be forced to do so too.

Now I did explain my own position earlier to you:
>Outside actual food taste, the closer something is to being "me" the more distasteful I find the concept of eating it.
Other humans are pretty close to being actually "me" so I find the concept distasteful, but I would do it under certain circumstances.
Chickens are pretty far from being "me" so I don't find the concept distasteful at all.

u/veg-uh-tub-boolz · 1 pointr/facepalm

>The "right" conclusion? We're back to objective morality again...

And back to the fact that you know nothing about metaethics and are merely assuming that there's no objective morality.


>I'm semi-serious. It may well be the case that eating vegetables is also considered barbaric. However, I'm not the one claiming equivalency between plant life and animal life.

I'm not claiming that either. I'm just saying that if plants feel, then going vegan still is the best way to reduce suffering and death of sentient life.

>Taking your own argument to the logical conclusion, though, does it not make more sense to simply commit suicide?

Nope.

>After all, if you will eat many thousands of plants in your lifetime then you are better off minimizing those plant casualties by dying early. Since that's plainly an absurd position, I posit that there is not an equivalence: not all lives are equal.

I agree, eating plants is fine. I was showing how your position didn't make sense. I don't think plants feel or think.


>That said, the current state of neuroscience is not the end-state of neuroscience. Studies suggest there may well be plant intelligence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(paranormal)

"Plant perception or biocommunication is the paranormal idea that plants are sentient, that they respond to humans in a manner that amounts to ESP, and that they experience pain and fear. The idea is not accepted, as plants lack nervous systems.[1][2][3][4]Paranormal claims in regard to plant perception are considered to be pseudoscience by many in the scientific community.[1][2][5][6]"

> To rely on the current state of a branch of science as your bedrock for an apparently objective morality is flawed due to the inherent mutability of scientific knowledge. As the science changes your morality will be forced to do so too.

Again, even if plants are sentient, going vegan and eating plants directly is still the best way to reduce suffering and death of sentient life.

>Now I did explain my own position earlier to you:
>>Outside actual food taste, the closer something is to being "me" the more distasteful I find the concept of eating it.
>Other humans are pretty close to being actually "me" so I find the concept distasteful, but I would do it under certain circumstances.
>Chickens are pretty far from being "me" so I don't find the concept distasteful at all.

So it's more okay to eat someone with a different skin color than it is to eat someone who is the same race as you?