Deze jongeman verdient 2.800 euro per seconde met Vines

Een jaar geleden werkte hij nog in de schoenenwinkel van zijn moeder in het Britse Cardiff, nu wordt hij rijk met het maken van Vines. De 22-jarige Ben Phillips maakt zes seconden durende filmpjes en krijgt voor elke seconde 2.800 euro. Phillips werd bekend met de schattige Vines die hij maakte van het 3-jarige zoontje van zijn inmiddels ex-vriendin. Hij werd benaderd door een sponsor. 'Toen realiseerde ik me dat ik het maken van Vines als fulltime job zou kunnen vervullen.' De geluksvogel heeft zijn baan opgezegd en richt zich volledig op zijn Vine-kanaal dat inmiddels meer dan 1,3 miljoen volgers heeft. Om aan de vraag te voldoen, heeft hij twaalf man in dienst genomen. Over geld heeft hij het niet graag. Hij wil mensen vooral laten lachen, zo zegt hij zelf. Wel bevestigt de grapjas dat hij bijna 17.000 euro per Vine verdient.

Bron(nen):   Metro       

7 Reacties Doe mee met de discussie →


  1. Windows 8

    nooit van gehoord …not funny

  2. RhemaLogos

    Wie achter mij aan wil komen, moet zijn eigen wil verloochenen, zijn kruis op zich nemen en mij volgen.
    Want ieder die zijn leven wil behouden, zal het verliezen, maar wie zijn leven verliest omwille van mij, zal het behouden.
    Wat heeft een mens eraan de hele wereld te winnen als hij er het eeuwige leven bij inschiet?

    • Windows 8

      Let us sing praise to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for He is a loving God. Of His might and dominion, there is no compare; of His mercy and deliciousness, there is no equal.
      No other god can challenge Him; in the taste test, He is invincible. Through His pasta, He has blessed us with everlasting life, and holy is His Name.
      For He is the Flying Spaghetti Monster: the One, True, and Most High God, creator of man and midgit, giver of pasta, giver of sauce, from age to holy age; not created He was, but ever He lives, through the glory of spaghetti, now and forever. R’Amen.”

      (in antwoord op RhemaLogos)
      • RhemaLogos

        Question: “How is belief in God any different from Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?”

        Answer: Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (also known as Pastafarianism) is a “religion” created by a man named Bobby Henderson. Mr. Henderson created this satire in protest of the Kansas State Board of Education’s decision to teach intelligent design as an alternative to the theory of evolution. In essence, he was asking, “If foolish religious ideas like that of Intelligent Design have to be given equal time in high school biology classes, then why can’t other foolish religious ideas be taught alongside with it?” So, in protest, he made up a silly set of religious beliefs and demanded that they be given equal time in biology classes alongside the theories of evolution and Intelligent Design. His point seems to be that to teach Intelligent Design in schools is as absurd as teaching that the Flying Spaghetti Monster made the world and deceived scientists into believing evolution. (Note: Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is simply a new, and more entertaining, variation of Russell’s teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.)

        The line of reasoning for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism seems to be that
        1. There is no evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.
        2. There is no evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
        3. Therefore, belief in the Judeo-Christian God and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are on equal epistemic grounds.

        There are more problems with this thinking than can be covered in this article. However, some responses should given.

        Premise 1 is false. It is not the case that “there is no evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.” Mr. Henderson may not accept the evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, but he does not offer much by way of demonstrating that the classical and contemporary arguments for God’s existence are false. Even if he adequately refuted several arguments given by theists for the belief in God, he would still not be justified in saying that “there is NO evidence for the existence of God.” In fact, this comment smacks of an a priori rejection (a rejection of the evidence before the evidence is even given) of the notion that evidence may be given for the existence of God.

        Many arguments have been given for the existence of God. For example, there are cosmological arguments (arguments for a first cause), teleological arguments (arguments for a Grand Designer), moral arguments (arguments for a Moral Lawgiver), and others. Anyone who is serious about the question of God must deal with these arguments charitably and thoroughly before dogmatically rejecting belief in God. To ignorantly reject the existence of God “because I can’t think of any good reasons to believe in God” is not in keeping with the most influential thinkers in Western civilization. Almost all major philosophers and thinkers have dealt with the existence of God, and most of them accepted some form of belief in a God. A large number of philosophers have argued for their belief in the existence of God. It is a small minority of thinkers who have denied the existence of God.

        NOTE: This is not advocating the “appeal to the people” fallacy (argumentum ad populum). The argument is not that belief in God is true BECAUSE so many people believe that God exists. Rather, it is simply an irrefutable fact that many brilliant minds have pondered the God question and come to the conclusion that He does, in fact, exist. This fact, while it doesn’t prove that God exists, should prompt us to deal with the question of God’s existence with seriousness and intellectual honesty.

        In contrast with the serious issue of God’s existence, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is known to be made up. Several contrasts between belief in God and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are listed below:

        Belief in God

        (1) Prevalent among all peoples of all times. Atheism is very rare; even atheists admit this.
        (2) There are many sophisticated philosophical arguments for God’s existence.
        (3) The Christian God is a coherent explanation of why something exists rather than nothing, why logic is prescriptive and universal, why morality is objective, and why religion is ubiquitous.
        (4) Belief in God is rationally satisfying.

        Belief in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism

        (1) Believed by no one. Even the so-called advocates of the FSM do not really believe that it exists.

        (2) There are no technical philosophical arguments for the FSM. Actually, there are no technical arguments of any kind for the FSM.

        (3) Even those who sarcastically espouse that the FSM exists don’t really believe that the FSM exists, nor do they think that the FSM is a coherent explanation for finite contingent being, logic, morality, beauty, etc.

        (4) No one really believes in the FSM, but even if they did, it would not be rationally satisfying.

        While there are some atheists who take theistic arguments seriously, many atheists do not take the time to seriously consider these arguments. This fact may be clearly seen in popular atheist texts (e.g., The Atheist Debater’s Handbook and The God Delusion). These texts refute weak and incomplete arguments for theism and suppose that they have refuted the actual, fully reasoned arguments that Christian philosophers and theologians give. This is an intellectually dishonest practice.

        In short, the difference between belief in God and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is this:

        Belief in God is rational and supported by good reasons, and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrational and not supported by any good reasons. Bobby Henderson simply begs the question (commits a logical fallacy) when he says that there are no good reasons for belief in God. Despite his claim to the contrary, Christianity is a rationally defensible religion. There are difficult questions that we must ask ourselves as Christians, but the fact that there are difficult questions is not grounds for dismissing Christianity. As believers, our pursuit of answers to our own deep-seated spiritual questions draws us further into the intellectual richness of the Christian faith.

        (in antwoord op Windows 8)
        • Windows 8

          “Belief in God is rational” If you’re insane probably everything is ‘rational.
          Mooie ‘wij van WC-eend’

          (in antwoord op RhemaLogos)
          • RhemaLogos

            Mr. Windows 8 may not accept the evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, but he does not offer much by way of demonstrating that the classical and contemporary arguments for God’s existence are false. Even if he adequately refuted several arguments given by theists for the belief in God, he would still not be justified in saying that “there is NO evidence for the existence of God.”

            (in antwoord op Windows 8)
  3. Windows 8

    Hey Pieter, 2014 vraagt zijn ‘nieuws’ terug

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11049015/Britains-social-media-stars-making-2000-a-second.html

Reacties niet toegestaan