I don't think Hank has that justification for kicking the sh*t out of "Hank." "Hank" questioned, and stated his preference for kraut and weiners. He never actually refused to kiss Hank's ass (however if he never kisses Hank's ass, then it is time for kicking the sh*t out of "Hank.") As for being different than Hank, I think "Hank" is actually more like Hank than he would care to admit. He thinks he is right.
Good point(s).
On the one hand you wrote that Hank didn’t have justification to kick hank’s ass—yet—on the other hand, you wrote that if hank never kissed Hank’s ass, then it’s time for Hank to kick hank’s ass.
What gives Hank the justification he needs to kick hank’s ass if hank never kisses His ass?
It seems that people in video lack a mental process for evaluating the correctness of information they're given once someone they consider an authority has stated it to be true.
Or they have a mental process they could use to evaluate the correctness of information, but they don’t want to use it.
I submit to people's authority if I respect them. They have to first earn that respect. Something I thought about recently. Would I ever go to work for Republican's even if it were an amazing opportunity to do something I love to do? No. I would get fired within two weeks. I have little respect for many of them, therefore I will not submit to their authority. Some of them I do have respect for. John McCain redeemed himself later in his campaign. He earned my respect.
Sometimes even if someone has earned my respect I will push the boundaries of that relationship, for what reason I'm not sure. I am a risk taker. I generally tend to push the boundaries on everything. It usually takes them to assert their authority before I will take a step back and respect the boundaries. If I have respect for the person, I will do that.
I’m the same way. But, as Blue-Solitary-Wing-Walker mentioned, authority can be accepted uncritically, and that is the main point of this film.
If everything the missionaries say is true, then that person should get the shit kicked out of them. Even if he is Hank himself, he has not actually done anything to take himself out of the qualifications of getting his ass kicked, according to what the missionaries said.
Now, I suppose what you might say, is that everything the missionaries said is true, then everything Hank said will standing in the door is true. That would result in contradictions, though. That would mean the moon is and isn't made of cheese, for example. Perhaps I missed something, but I don't believe Hank actually told the missionaries they were wrong about all the things that would qualify Hank for an ass kicking. If that's true, then yes, Hank should get his ass kicked according to what the missionaries said, because he qualifies for an ass kicking in several ways, and he did not use his own irrefutable power to say that he should not get his ass kicked.
True, he’s not done anything do disqualify an ass kicking, but
should Hank kick his ass? Were it all true, he would get his ass kicked unless he “repents;” but would Hank have any justification for causing hank to suffer? Is hank's ignorance of Hank, his promises, and his laws, culpable such that he deserves to have his ass kicked if he doesn't "repent"?
If hank is Hank, and everything the proselytizers say is true, then Hank both should and shouldn’t get his ass kicked, because everything follows a contradiction. Hank could be lying, but this poses problems too and needn’t be examined here in detail.
I’d forgotten that hank could be Hank. I prefer this interpretation, but only if some of what the proselytizers say is false, and I think this is the best interpretation: Hank/God tests the proselytizers' understanding by asking them questions, revealing whether or not they are concerned with understanding. When they fail the test and become disgusted with Hank and His desire for understanding, He lets them go.
Nope, you and bluewing pretty much got all of the points covered give or take a couple.
I thought this was more like a PSA to dogmatic believers, where the creators of the video were trying to provoke thought that would cause them to question their own beliefs.
I’m don’t what the PSA is, but I think you’re right about the creators’ intent. At the end, it says the story was created by someone with the title “Rev.” which usually stands for “Reverend.” I believe this film was created by Christians who are pushing their fellow believers to go farther in understanding. Although it may very well have been created by non-Christians. Either way, they did a good job.