Sign In

darth_ender

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
26-Apr-2011
Last activity
19-Jan-2018
Posts
10652

Post History

Post
#1156631
Topic
Star Wars: The Lost Cut
Time

cosmicjazz said:

darth_ender said:

cosmicjazz said:

One other thing I thought of in regards to the opening crawl. Would it be possible to recreate it by actually filming it like it was originally done. I’m sure there are people here that know what the complete text was. I think that would look better than creating it digitally. Just a thought.

That would be fun. Not sure anyone is willing to go to those lengths but that would be nifty.

If I knew the text I may give it a shot

This video replicates it perfectly, but it fades out too soon.

https://youtu.be/eNHQmHVrORc

Post
#1156620
Topic
Star Wars: The Lost Cut
Time

Ronster said:

darth_ender said:

Ronster said:

A point you have raised i find considerably interesting.

With regards to the destruction of Alderaan from within the view screen.

Although when you consider the explosion has a big jump cut in it. This may actually explain why there is a jump cut if the destruction was to be spread across 2 or 3 shots.

Perhaps the Laser forms the cone we then see the planet hit through the viewscreen being hit and the start of the explosion

Next would be a short reaction from Leia. Then cut to Space to complete the explosion.

So although we are merely talking about half a second or so.

I think it is the answer to the Jump cut.

Also it might go the other way around Space explosion. Leia reaction. Remainder of explosion completes in the view screen.

I might have a go at that. Where can I find the reaction shot?

You might be right. I would love to see any mockup you could do!

It’s weird but I have been thinking about this part recently… Anyway can you point me to the Leia reaction shot if possible?

Around the 1 hr 8-9 minute mark.

https://vimeo.com/32442801

Of course now looking at it, she speaks so quickly that it might not fit but I was planning on combining the different angles of “You call yourselves humans” anyway. I’ll just have to silence her dialogue from the back.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1156575
Topic
Star Wars: The Lost Cut
Time

Ronster said:

A point you have raised i find considerably interesting.

With regards to the destruction of Alderaan from within the view screen.

Although when you consider the explosion has a big jump cut in it. This may actually explain why there is a jump cut if the destruction was to be spread across 2 or 3 shots.

Perhaps the Laser forms the cone we then see the planet hit through the viewscreen being hit and the start of the explosion

Next would be a short reaction from Leia. Then cut to Space to complete the explosion.

So although we are merely talking about half a second or so.

I think it is the answer to the Jump cut.

Also it might go the other way around Space explosion. Leia reaction. Remainder of explosion completes in the view screen.

I might have a go at that. Where can I find the reaction shot?

You might be right. I would love to see any mockup you could do!

Post
#1156573
Topic
Star Wars: The Lost Cut
Time

benduwan said:

use only star wars stuff,not ww2.

Sounds good. I agree.

fill missing scenes with pics and use unfinished scenes or fx.

I have so many pictures that I might have to limit my use of pictures to the most important occasions, but I think I agree with you, I should use pictures to fill in some holes. Thanks!

i´m very interested in this.

I’m glad. No disrespect to any other editor, but TM2YC’s Lost Workprint edit was probably my favorite fan edit if all time. I love the inclusion of all these deleted scenes! Hopefully I can do justice to the edit in those portions I’ve taken on.

Post
#1156572
Topic
Star Wars: The Lost Cut
Time

cosmicjazz said:

One other thing I thought of in regards to the opening crawl. Would it be possible to recreate it by actually filming it like it was originally done. I’m sure there are people here that know what the complete text was. I think that would look better than creating it digitally. Just a thought.

That would be fun. Not sure anyone is willing to go to those lengths but that would be nifty.

Post
#1156570
Topic
Star Wars: The Lost Cut
Time

cosmicjazz said:

Are you going to remove the matte shots by utilizing old photos like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MERFX04Jndg/VngaAzjcp6I/AAAAAAAAh5g/ZC5LfA_qdjU/s1600/matte%2Bpainting%2Bstrange%2Btales%2Bharrison%2Bellenshaw%2Bsand%2Bcrawler%2Bstar%2Bwars.jpg

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--YRwKE0u5--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/hsstfavfl3wxpxeoxd9x.jpg

http://www.blueharvest.net/images/set/tat/behind-lukeben.jpg

Unfortunately, I don’t have much in the way of special effects skills. I would love to use shots without effects, but unless the shot already exists in motion, I will not be able to change it on my own. That said, if anyone is able to restore the pre-effects shots, I’d be pleased and would make use of them.

Post
#1156566
Topic
Star Wars: The Lost Cut
Time

Dek Rollins said:

darth_ender said:

Another request (shoulda mentioned this earlier):

I have a vague and possibly false recollection of seeing the entry into the Death Star trench without lasers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WBG2rJZGW8&t=5m58s

I would like to show the Y-wings entering prior to the beginning of laser fire. If this footage truly exists, can anyone point me to it?

I’m not sure why something like that would exist considering that it’s two shots that are joined by a hidden cut in a laser flash.

That’s funny that I never realized that. Obviously my memory is faulty.

Post
#1156346
Topic
Star Wars: The Lost Cut
Time

Another request (shoulda mentioned this earlier):

I have a vague and possibly false recollection of seeing the entry into the Death Star trench without lasers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WBG2rJZGW8&t=5m58s

I would like to show the Y-wings entering prior to the beginning of laser fire. If this footage truly exists, can anyone point me to it?

Post
#1156329
Topic
Star Wars: The Lost Cut
Time

I am not the first to try my hand at this edit. TM2YC had a go at it, and to my understanding intends to complete it someday.

Likewise, Obi Benuubi also began work on it, though he has fizzled out and has not been heard from for some time. To his credit, he already typed up a great deal of the same background information and links that I would provide. Therefore, I will be reusing some of his OP here.

There exists a rough cut of Star Wars: A New Hope. This has become what people now call “The Lost Cut”. This version was originally spliced together by John Jympson. The film was later re-cut to form the film I saw in theaters back in May 1977.

David Reynolds published an article in the Star Wars Insider #41 that talked about it. Here’s a brief rundown of what he mentioned:

  1. Black-and-white, silent 13 35mm reels.

  2. The reel cans are labeled “The Star Wars”, which was the original title.

  3. 30-40% different footage (including unused scenes and longer/alternate takes).

  4. Feels less dramatic than theatrical cut; more documentary-like.

  5. Live projected backgrounds were often used in place of blue screen effects.

  6. There is more time given to both main and secondary characters.

For reference, here are pictures to the article describing the “Lost Cut.”

Star Wars Insider #41 scans: Pages 68-75, 4 files, 2 pages each: http://i.imgur.com/T43degX.jpg | http://i.imgur.com/JKQGxxg.jpg | http://i.imgur.com/FmXE3YP.jpg | http://i.imgur.com/x4JVqx9.jpg

I am working on recreating this same cut as closely as we can with today’s existing footage. Admittedly, this is a hypothetical cut that comes closer to matching this “Lost Cut” than the version we all love, but it certainly is not the same.

I am very fortunate to have TM2YC’s permission to use his rough draft, where he had already made a great deal of wonderful progress. We don’t have exactly the same plans, but he did so much that I am truly amazed and appreciative of the foundation he has laid. If I do actually end up completing this project, I still could hardly take any credit for it, because truly it is his edit with my tailoring. I have no intention to steal his thunder, and therefore, if he ever decides to revoke his permission, I feel I owe it to him to give him back his work. However, I hope he will continue to allow me to work using his project as a starting point.

NOTABLE CHANGES:

The scenes will be structured to match the original script, with the novel providing assistance.
I will use as many deleted scenes and alternate takes as possible.
Existing footage will be downgraded with scratches and dirt, and all will be in black and white.
I will add audio from the Radio Drama on rare occasions to flesh out dialogue or add emotion
Luke will make two trench runs as described in the novel and originally scripted

Among the differences from the true Lost Cut are the obvious facts that I will retain sound and music. Also, there will be times when I keep shots that only existed in reshoots, such as some of the creatures from the cantina.

I also have a bit of a different vision from TM2YC when completing this project. While he was trying to retain a compelling storyline at the expense of historical accuracy, I am going to reproduce the Lost Cut with greater accuracy, though it will probably be a less interesting story for it.

REQUESTS:

I already have numerous alternate and deleted shots available, though I am open to new material if you find something I was not aware of.

I am also open to suggestions. For instance, there are times where it would be useful to have a shot, yet the closest we might have available is a single frame. Should I include these pictures, perhaps with a “SCENE MISSING” overlay and dialogue/soundtrack to help fill in gaps? Should I use stock footage from WWII at times, or should I just stick to Star Wars footage? Should I use pre-effects footage when available?

While most of the audio editing shouldn’t be too problematic, there is one area where it truly becomes difficult: the Battle of Yavin; the music and dialogue are so intertwined that one cannot isolate the dialogue, and yet the scene requires a great deal of reordering. This results in a very awkward audio experience. I intend to rebuild the audio for this particular scene, but it is difficult without isolated dialogue. I found some lines from the soundboard on starwars.com, but that is only a small percentage of the total lines. I will probably have to capture each individual line, reduce the sound, and insert a low-quality line back into the movie, hoping the new soundtrack will cover most of the flaws.

I would appreciate is some help with special effects. Yes, I know that Star Wars did not utilize the CGI I am requesting, but I believe they are within the spirit of the original movie and make certain elements work better. I cannot do even the most basic of tasks, but I imagine my requests are rather simple for some of the technical wizards I’ve seen around here:

  • Take one of the shots of Luke zooming down the Death Star trench towards the camera and add a proton torpedo launch - this is to give variety to the proton torpedo launches since Luke is making two runs. It will still be a reused element, but it will appear different with the torpedo launch.

  • Remove the view of the trench outside Luke’s cockpit after Red Leader dies and he looks concerned - as he looks far more distressed after Red Leader dies than after Biggs dies, and as we will be reintroducing the Biggs scenes, I believe it is better to switch the shots, but the reaction to new Biggs’s death shows the trench walls through the windows.

  • Add the effect of an exploding Alderaan to the screen that Leia is watching when she sees her homeworld destroyed - there is actual video of her watching the viewscreen, but this picture of her walking away is merely a lone still.

  • Assistance with recreating a different Star Wars opening crawl - this is an earlier version of the crawl with a different logo that recedes with the rest of the text. This picture actually belongs to a YouTube video that recreates the crawl, but it fades earlier than would be ideal.

Has anyone ever obtained individual sound elements from the 1983 Star Wars arcade game? I know that there are some lines there that might prove useful.

Many, many thanks go to TM2YC for putting so much work into this edit already. He has created effects that allow for the inclusion of more material and has allowed me to use his draft as a springboard.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1156255
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

To say she can’t possibly win is silly. Anyone with 100% name recognition and tons of money has the possibility to win. I wouldn’t think she’s the favorite but of course she’d have a chance.

On 538’s podcast yesterday they reranked their likely Dem nominees for 2020 based on this Orpah “news.” Nate Silver placed her 5th, ahead of Doug Jones and Bernie Sanders.

Sorry but I trust Nate Silver more than you.

Who is 1st?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg

Post
#1156165
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Trump doesn’t seem all that evangelical if you ask me.

The bar is lower today than ever before. Trump may be our first atheist President – but he’s a self-righteous, bigoted, ignorant, loudmouthed atheist, and apparently in some circles that makes you an honorary evangelical.

not in my circle.

I get that. Nevertheless, there are other – and unfortunately, larger – circles.

That’s quite a generalization.

Post
#1155777
Topic
Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

darth_ender said:

moviefreakedmind said:

darth_ender said:

moviefreakedmind said:

darth_ender said:

If you discriminate Mormons for holding those views by, for example, speaking unkindly, making prejudiced remarks, not welcoming to a barbecue, or refusing to hire one for a job, then that’s not okay.

This is something that really irritates me. Speaking unkindly about someone’s philosophy is not discriminatory and making remarks about how bad someone’s religious ideology is is not being prejudiced.

First, I am not suggesting that you cannot disagree with a religion over specific beliefs. I am not at all indicating that my faith is immune from your criticism because of the different view on this topic.

I’m not talking disagreement, I’m talking about finding a religious philosophy to be fabricated, unlikable, and out of place in modern society. I find many political philosophies to fit that description and no one screams bigotry when I am hard on those views, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to give religion a free pass because it means more to some people. I think it’s extremely problematic to do so. Look at the conversation with Warbler that I had a couple months ago where people are still willing to give the Pope a free pass even on matters of the child sex abuse cover ups purely because he’s the pope and Catholics like him so he shouldn’t be criticized too harshly. Well, he doesn’t a free pass from me, no matter how fancy his hat and robes are.

Actually, I feel there is a great deal of bigotry regarding political philosophies. Of course, there are those groups who clearly hold abhorrent views, but I believe there is a great deal of prejudice just between the two major American parties.

I said already that you are welcome to critique the pope for his specific actions. Likewise, I have said multiple times that you can critique my church.

I critique, but I go beyond that in that I actively dislike the entire religious system and think that it’s bad. I don’t hold anything against people that follow it, although I do hold much against those that have active leadership roles in the hierarchy of religious systems. My point is that I don’t think that’s bigotry and I’m wondering if you do.

It depends on the nature of the critique and the generalization one would hold. Bigotry is generally defined as broad and likely inaccurate conclusions about a demographic based on limited representation, so I believe there is a certain level of bigotry involved here. Don’t get me wrong, we are all bigoted at times. However, I think it is self-induced blindness to refuse to acknowledge it.

But referring to the rest of your post, you are actually very wrong. A great deal of prejudice has been exhibited towards people for the religious beliefs. It has served as the underpinning for the violation of the rights of religious groups throughout history, even going so far as to lead to violence. My own faith has a long history of bigotry towards it. People have been vandalous and violent towards my faith. You can disagree without being discriminatory, but many people use their disagreement to get to the point of bigotry without even acknowledging the inherent evil of their actions.

I don’t condone bigotry, violence, or vandalism and I know my history so you don’t need to lecture me on that. Nobody on this forum has displayed any bigotry toward you unless there’s a troll or two that I’m forgetting about.

I don’t feel like I am even approaching a lecturing attitude. If anyone is coming off as condescending in this conversation, I don’t feel it’s me. And I did not indicate that anyone was treating me in a bigoted fashion (though there are certainly those who have here in the past). In fact, this was never the point of my argument. You have sidetracked the conversation, which was actually that my church may not be perfect, but they make a great deal of effort to display Christ-like love towards everyone, including homosexuals. I was trying to point out that people who paint Mormonism as completely hostile towards homosexuals are being unfair, and I was using a parallel example in Frink’s attitude towards my faith.

He never said it was completely hostile. I think his point and mine is that saying “we hate the sin but love the sinner and only exclude them from certain elements of our faith and system” doesn’t give you a gold star in our book. I think of Mormonism as a religion that perpetuates negative, archaic, and dare I say hostile (to a degree) attitudes toward homosexuals. I also will admit that I have mixed feelings in the sense that I do believe anyone would be better off not being baptized into the church, so I can’t say I feel bad for the kids who dared to belong to the wrong parents and can’t get baptized. I just think your justification is faulty.

Bear in mind, as I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t agree with the decision. However, I am clarifying the intent, which was never hostile. While there may be cultural elements that remain hostile, or a particular exclusion that can be perceived as hostile, the Church leadership advocates for kindness and respect towards all.

If the Mormon I’m welcoming to my barbecue doesn’t talk about his faith when no one wants to hear about it, then I’m cool with him or her, but they’re devout in their religion and believe that my lifestyle is abhorrent and a crime against the almighty, then I would probably find it uncomfortable to be welcoming.

You are welcome to feel that way. My point is that you should not withhold your neighborly kindness just because you find something that other individual holds to be contrary to your moral worldview.

How contrary does it have to be? I wouldn’t exclude any Mormons just because they’re Mormons. Members of my family are Mormon, in fact. But I would definitely exclude people like the man that we’re mourning in this thread because he represented and led something I consider corrupt, antiquated, and morally objectionable in countless ways.

Well, that is your right. Unfortunately, you have demonstrated in times past that you misunderstand my faith.

I don’t understand your own personal faith, and I’m not going to pretend to be versed in Mormon theology, but I definitely understand the very real and negative consequences Mormonism has more than you do. The ostracizing, the lack of transparency, the financial corruption, the exclusive nature of the hierarchy within the church’s community itself. Maybe in your specific community this hasn’t been a problem, but it isn’t some made-up problem that is cherrypicked out of an out-of-context news article like you’ve claimed it to be in the past.

Do you truly understand more than I do? If there is a personal anecdote that you are willing to share, I’d love to hear it. Often, there are isolated stories about the poor decisions individuals make that are not representative of my faith. Often, those stories are also very one-sided. Furthermore, I doubt you truly have a better understanding of any lack of transparency or supposed corruption than I do. I have said it before, I did not open this thread as an ignoramus. I am well aware of the history of my church and the criticisms leveled against it, probably better than you. If you cannot share specifics, I find it hard to believe that you are truly more knowledgeable on those negative sides and are well-equipped to make a fair judgment or argument against my faith.

To be truthful, even if I were not Mormon, I would rather accept the man we are mourning in this thread to any event because, regardless of how I differ with him on the topic of homosexuality, I believe he has lived nothing but a life of kindness towards others. On the other hand, I’d have a harder time accepting someone with your attitude towards humanity in general, as your views approach sociopathy and misanthropy. I don’t mean to turn this into an ad hominem attack, but I have a hard time accepting lecturing on how to treat humanity from someone who has admitted to hating the majority of people. Perhaps that is, in fact, the primary reason you have such a negative outlook on my faith, while refusing to see the good.

I don’t blame you for not wanting me at your barbecue, I’m incredibly unlikable, but while I don’t doubt that I’m a barely functional insane person, you’ve got it all wrong about me being a sociopath. You can say I’m callous and mean all you want, but I value other people. The main thing I look for in other people is how they treat their fellow human beings. When it comes to general kindness, I don’t think I value that all that much. To me, any person no matter how selfish and awful can be kind and friendly if they want to be and then fuck you over when they feel like it. I want the people that interact with me to feel comfortable and feel unthreatened, and I want to be trustworthy and helpful. And I do all of this even if the person I’m interacting with pisses me off because I get that they, like me, are deserving of decent treatment. You’re right, I don’t like most people. I find them unpleasant and insipid most of the time, and I’m always saying I hate them, but as crazy as it sounds (and as you’re not afraid to tell me, I am pretty crazy) I still think I value treating people with decency a lot more than most on this earth do. It probably doesn’t translate well over the internet because I’m very sarcastic and upfront. My problem is that I have low tolerance for things that I disagree with, so when I disagree I can’t help but point it out. But I thought that was okay in this thread since the title does call for us to interrogate you.

I have not yet called you crazy or insane, and that is certainly not my intent. A sociopath is not insane and in fact can be very intelligent. Rather, they have a negative outlook on others to the point that they do not mind causing injury to others, feeling they are beneath the individual. However, based on your description, that is probably not a fair thing to say.

Also, I have said more than once, you are welcome to interrogate and disagree. I am not saying you cannot. However, I will forcefully defend my point of view. You say I am lecturing you, but I can’t help but get annoyed when you make such a statement when I felt my comments were respectful, and yet you tell me how my church is unkind when I’ve seen some horrible things posted by you. But please, continue to interrogate. This thread is open for that.

How would it be if I invited my neighbors to a barbecue, but only those who abstained from sex before marriage? Would that not seem discriminatory?

That’s very personal information that you’d probably have to ask people for in order to even know. My example only applied to people with obnoxious outward displays of religiosity, but you could do that. It wouldn’t be a very fun or spontaneous party though. It would be discriminatory, but not in a particularly objectionable way since it just sounds like the opposite of a singles’ party.

It’s just an example, and not necessarily a realistic one. Its purpose is illustrative, but there definitely are people who openly and obnoxious in sharing such information. And while perhaps a lame example, it still is an example of unkindness and exclusivity.

How about politics? Are you going to justified in excluding people of a different political affiliation from you from jobs, parties, or other events simply because their personal philosophy differs from mine and can be changed? No, it remains bigoted to do so.

If the person I was hiring never shut up about their political views and repeatedly brought them to work even when told clearly not to, then yes I would fire them. I wouldn’t feel good about it. I bet I’d hate firing people, but if they pushed me to it I’d have to. If someone never shut up about their boring politics that are irrelevant to everyone but them (and we all know a person like that), then I would exclude them from jobs, parties, and other events, but not simply because they differ from me.

You seem to conflate several arguments. I am talking about someone who just holds those views, regardless of how open or quiet they are about them.

And I’m only talking about the brazen and open ones that are annoying.

Look, you came into my thread (or barbecue, if you will) with a strong opinion, which you have not shied away from. Yet, I continue to allow you to post these things without demanding you leave. Quite frankly, I’m not a fan of your negative opinions of those whose views differ from yours. However, I can still tolerate your opinion, as mutable as it is or objectionable as I find it.

I thought we were supposed to interrogate you, and I tolerate your opinion too. I tolerate almost everything that differs from my views, I’m just not quiet (in the appropriate places) about how I feel.

You are. That is my point. I am willing to share my thread with you, even when I find your opinion offensive and somewhat bigoted. I am also not going to be quiet about how I feel about it. I would not exclude you for that difference of opinion.

Refusing to hire someone for a job is different, but again, if they’re extremely outspoken and don’t keep their religion to their self while on the job, then I wouldn’t want to hire them. No matter how much you try to do this, it not compelling or fair to equate not liking someone’s philosophy with not liking someone’s immutable characteristics.

This is truly where people draw a false line. Yes, homosexuality is more immutable and unchangeable than a religious philosophy, but mankind’s draw to religion is certainly immutable, and the passion and strength that causes a person to cling to such views are not changed as easily as deciding what to have for breakfast. How many people have died for their faith? Why were they so committed? In terms of influence and self-definition, I’m afraid that the characteristics of one’s faith are not as different from sexual preference as you seem to believe.

I judge people based on what they believe, think, and the way they behave. I don’t consider religion any different than what someone believes about politics or literature or anything like that. I don’t think religion is inherently worthy of respect. It’s just more of people’s opinions and I don’t think those are inherently worthy of respect either. If what someone believes makes sense to me or is rational in some way, then I’ll respect it, but if not then I don’t. And just because I don’t respect someone’s beliefs doesn’t mean that I have something against that person on a personal level.

I get it. I don’t like a lot of opinions either. But if you truly feel this way, why did you even bring this topic up? That was my point about the whole thing. Just because Church leadership opposes homosexuality in a general sense doesn’t mean they are trying to be hurtful or unkind on a personal level. There is a great deal the Church has done that is good and kind, even towards homosexuals. My point was that, if people take issue with the Church’s views, they might want to remember all the good the Church has endeavored to do as well. To label an entire thing as evil based on only a few isolated points while neglecting the overall picture is ignorant and bigoted. It applies to sexual orientation, religion (which, again, was merely an illustration), politics, race, sex, etc.

I think the good that the church has done isn’t unique enough to the Mormon philosophy for it to redeem the religion itself. It’s like saying that Jimmy Fallon gave money to charity or something. Lots of people give money to charity, and of course it’s a nice thing to do, but he’s still Jimmy Fallon.

Well, considering your negative views in general, I’m not sure I can take too much offense at what you say. I don’t agree that your opinions are fair-minded or unprejudiced, but you are welcome to them. It is obvious I will not persuade you otherwise by argument. I don’t know you well enough to make any accurate judgments about you either, but I hope you are fairer with individuals than you are with religion. In spite of your broad hatred of humanity, I hope you still judge people as individuals. Otherwise, I just see you as the pot calling the kettle black.

Post
#1155773
Topic
Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Look at the conversation with Warbler that I had a couple months ago where people are still willing to give the Pope a free pass even on matters of the child sex abuse cover ups purely because he’s the pope and Catholics like him so he shouldn’t be criticized too harshly. Well, he doesn’t a free pass from me, no matter how fancy his hat and robes are.

I never said the Pope should get a free pass. Yes I disagree with what O’Connor did, but I don’t think the Pope should get a free pass.

Your implication is that he should be criticized less harshly and more respectfully than other people because of his position, regardless of his crimes against humanity.

Though this statement was made to Warbler, I will respond. I don’t think anyone is saying a religious figure should be protected by his position, though perhaps they are defending the net good of the individual, even in spite of a few shortcomings.

I don’t condone bigotry, violence, or vandalism and I know my history so you don’t need to lecture me on that. Nobody on this forum has displayed any bigotry toward you unless there’s a troll or two that I’m forgetting about.

There was prominent forum member that once made fun of the undergarment Mormons wear, he referred to them as magic underwear.

What’s wrong with that? If I said I was wearing special underwear in order to remind me to pay my rent, or some areligious, then everyone would make fun of me. Why is it free from criticism or mockery just because it has to do with religion?

Because of the very fact that I shared: religion defines individuals. It is far more immutable than you give it credit. Religious beliefs deserve as much respect as others. Just because I find many of your beliefs in general to be incorrect or at times offensive doesn’t mean I’m going to mock you for them.

If the person I was hiring never shut up about their political views and repeatedly brought them to work even when told clearly not to, then yes I would fire them.

I wonder what the courts would say about that. No doubt the person being fired for sue you for religious discrimination. I am not saying you’d be guilty of that for firing the guy. I’d let let the courts decide that.

I’d be right and the litigious person throwing a frivolous lawsuit at me would be wrong, regardless of what the courts say. I don’t own a business and don’t plan on starting one so it isn’t a problem for me.

I guess you are never wrong, then.

Post
#1155772
Topic
The prediction thread
Time

Well, that’s a bit harsh. It’s a prediction thread. I thought it was silly. I didn’t believe it to be offensive, though I can agree to it being juvenile. I can delete it, but I would also ask you to delete your quote of it.

That said, I believe we can all be allowed to make mistakes. It sounds like you have a lowered opinion of me all around. I am sorry if that is true.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1155085
Topic
Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I think you’re mostly right. I also should point out that I do kind of agree with Ender that there’s no reason to create conflict because someone holds personal beliefs that I don’t like, but I also don’t think that religion deserves the kind of reverence that he thinks everyone should give it.

Truly, I am fine with this point of view. You are welcome to challenge my views here, though I will probably defend with great vigor. But there is a difference between honest disagreement and broad bigotry.

Post
#1155083
Topic
Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

darth_ender said:

moviefreakedmind said:

darth_ender said:

If you discriminate Mormons for holding those views by, for example, speaking unkindly, making prejudiced remarks, not welcoming to a barbecue, or refusing to hire one for a job, then that’s not okay.

This is something that really irritates me. Speaking unkindly about someone’s philosophy is not discriminatory and making remarks about how bad someone’s religious ideology is is not being prejudiced.

First, I am not suggesting that you cannot disagree with a religion over specific beliefs. I am not at all indicating that my faith is immune from your criticism because of the different view on this topic.

I’m not talking disagreement, I’m talking about finding a religious philosophy to be fabricated, unlikable, and out of place in modern society. I find many political philosophies to fit that description and no one screams bigotry when I am hard on those views, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to give religion a free pass because it means more to some people. I think it’s extremely problematic to do so. Look at the conversation with Warbler that I had a couple months ago where people are still willing to give the Pope a free pass even on matters of the child sex abuse cover ups purely because he’s the pope and Catholics like him so he shouldn’t be criticized too harshly. Well, he doesn’t a free pass from me, no matter how fancy his hat and robes are.

Actually, I feel there is a great deal of bigotry regarding political philosophies. Of course, there are those groups who clearly hold abhorrent views, but I believe there is a great deal of prejudice just between the two major American parties.

I said already that you are welcome to critique the pope for his specific actions. Likewise, I have said multiple times that you can critique my church.

But referring to the rest of your post, you are actually very wrong. A great deal of prejudice has been exhibited towards people for the religious beliefs. It has served as the underpinning for the violation of the rights of religious groups throughout history, even going so far as to lead to violence. My own faith has a long history of bigotry towards it. People have been vandalous and violent towards my faith. You can disagree without being discriminatory, but many people use their disagreement to get to the point of bigotry without even acknowledging the inherent evil of their actions.

I don’t condone bigotry, violence, or vandalism and I know my history so you don’t need to lecture me on that. Nobody on this forum has displayed any bigotry toward you unless there’s a troll or two that I’m forgetting about.

I don’t feel like I am even approaching a lecturing attitude. If anyone is coming off as condescending in this conversation, I don’t feel it’s me. And I did not indicate that anyone was treating me in a bigoted fashion (though there are certainly those who have here in the past). In fact, this was never the point of my argument. You have sidetracked the conversation, which was actually that my church may not be perfect, but they make a great deal of effort to display Christ-like love towards everyone, including homosexuals. I was trying to point out that people who paint Mormonism as completely hostile towards homosexuals are being unfair, and I was using a parallel example in Frink’s attitude towards my faith.

If the Mormon I’m welcoming to my barbecue doesn’t talk about his faith when no one wants to hear about it, then I’m cool with him or her, but they’re devout in their religion and believe that my lifestyle is abhorrent and a crime against the almighty, then I would probably find it uncomfortable to be welcoming.

You are welcome to feel that way. My point is that you should not withhold your neighborly kindness just because you find something that other individual holds to be contrary to your moral worldview.

How contrary does it have to be? I wouldn’t exclude any Mormons just because they’re Mormons. Members of my family are Mormon, in fact. But I would definitely exclude people like the man that we’re mourning in this thread because he represented and led something I consider corrupt, antiquated, and morally objectionable in countless ways.

Well, that is your right. Unfortunately, you have demonstrated in times past that you misunderstand my faith. To be truthful, even if I were not Mormon, I would rather accept the man we are mourning in this thread to any event because, regardless of how I differ with him on the topic of homosexuality, I believe he has lived nothing but a life of kindness towards others. On the other hand, I’d have a harder time accepting someone with your attitude towards humanity in general, as your views approach sociopathy and misanthropy. I don’t mean to turn this into an ad hominem attack, but I have a hard time accepting lecturing on how to treat humanity from someone who has admitted to hating the majority of people. Perhaps that is, in fact, the primary reason you have such a negative outlook on my faith, while refusing to see the good.

How would it be if I invited my neighbors to a barbecue, but only those who abstained from sex before marriage? Would that not seem discriminatory?

That’s very personal information that you’d probably have to ask people for in order to even know. My example only applied to people with obnoxious outward displays of religiosity, but you could do that. It wouldn’t be a very fun or spontaneous party though. It would be discriminatory, but not in a particularly objectionable way since it just sounds like the opposite of a singles’ party.

It’s just an example, and not necessarily a realistic one. Its purpose is illustrative, but there definitely are people who openly and obnoxious in sharing such information. And while perhaps a lame example, it still is an example of unkindness and exclusivity.

How about politics? Are you going to justified in excluding people of a different political affiliation from you from jobs, parties, or other events simply because their personal philosophy differs from mine and can be changed? No, it remains bigoted to do so.

If the person I was hiring never shut up about their political views and repeatedly brought them to work even when told clearly not to, then yes I would fire them. I wouldn’t feel good about it. I bet I’d hate firing people, but if they pushed me to it I’d have to. If someone never shut up about their boring politics that are irrelevant to everyone but them (and we all know a person like that), then I would exclude them from jobs, parties, and other events, but not simply because they differ from me.

You seem to conflate several arguments. I am talking about someone who just holds those views, regardless of how open or quiet they are about them.

Look, you came into my thread (or barbecue, if you will) with a strong opinion, which you have not shied away from. Yet, I continue to allow you to post these things without demanding you leave. Quite frankly, I’m not a fan of your negative opinions of those whose views differ from yours. However, I can still tolerate your opinion, as mutable as it is or objectionable as I find it.

Refusing to hire someone for a job is different, but again, if they’re extremely outspoken and don’t keep their religion to their self while on the job, then I wouldn’t want to hire them. No matter how much you try to do this, it not compelling or fair to equate not liking someone’s philosophy with not liking someone’s immutable characteristics.

This is truly where people draw a false line. Yes, homosexuality is more immutable and unchangeable than a religious philosophy, but mankind’s draw to religion is certainly immutable, and the passion and strength that causes a person to cling to such views are not changed as easily as deciding what to have for breakfast. How many people have died for their faith? Why were they so committed? In terms of influence and self-definition, I’m afraid that the characteristics of one’s faith are not as different from sexual preference as you seem to believe.

I judge people based on what they believe, think, and the way they behave. I don’t consider religion any different than what someone believes about politics or literature or anything like that. I don’t think religion is inherently worthy of respect. It’s just more of people’s opinions and I don’t think those are inherently worthy of respect either. If what someone believes makes sense to me or is rational in some way, then I’ll respect it, but if not then I don’t. And just because I don’t respect someone’s beliefs doesn’t mean that I have something against that person on a personal level.

I get it. I don’t like a lot of opinions either. But if you truly feel this way, why did you even bring this topic up? That was my point about the whole thing. Just because Church leadership opposes homosexuality in a general sense doesn’t mean they are trying to be hurtful or unkind on a personal level. There is a great deal the Church has done that is good and kind, even towards homosexuals. My point was that, if people take issue with the Church’s views, they might want to remember all the good the Church has endeavored to do as well. To label an entire thing as evil based on only a few isolated points while neglecting the overall picture is ignorant and bigoted. It applies to sexual orientation, religion (which, again, was merely an illustration), politics, race, sex, etc.

Post
#1154975
Topic
Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon
Time

yhwx said:

Well, you kind of stumped me there. I don’t think I try to associate with many groups, which I think may be part of my aversion to labels that I described a few months back. But I guess if I were forced to answer your question, I’d say there’s very few or no group that I believe to have universally good ideologies.

So in answer to your question, even though I differ with my church on a few things, I love most everything about it. I believe that our recently deceased president was indeed a prophet, but that does not make him infallible. I believe my church has been wrong before, is wrong on this issue, but will continue to strive to understand God’s will. I believe that there is nothing closer on earth to understanding that will than my church, but that the Church is not right about everything. Just because I am not in 100% agreement, I still am happy to consider myself a Mormon.

Post
#1154974
Topic
Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

darth_ender said:

If you discriminate Mormons for holding those views by, for example, speaking unkindly, making prejudiced remarks, not welcoming to a barbecue, or refusing to hire one for a job, then that’s not okay.

This is something that really irritates me. Speaking unkindly about someone’s philosophy is not discriminatory and making remarks about how bad someone’s religious ideology is is not being prejudiced.

First, I am not suggesting that you cannot disagree with a religion over specific beliefs. I am not at all indicating that my faith is immune from your criticism because of the different view on this topic.

But referring to the rest of your post, you are actually very wrong. A great deal of prejudice has been exhibited towards people for the religious beliefs. It has served as the underpinning for the violation of the rights of religious groups throughout history, even going so far as to lead to violence. My own faith has a long history of bigotry towards it. People have been vandalous and violent towards my faith. You can disagree without being discriminatory, but many people use their disagreement to get to the point of bigotry without even acknowledging the inherent evil of their actions.

If the Mormon I’m welcoming to my barbecue doesn’t talk about his faith when no one wants to hear about it, then I’m cool with him or her, but they’re devout in their religion and believe that my lifestyle is abhorrent and a crime against the almighty, then I would probably find it uncomfortable to be welcoming.

You are welcome to feel that way. My point is that you should not withhold your neighborly kindness just because you find something that other individual holds to be contrary to your moral worldview. How would it be if I invited my neighbors to a barbecue, but only those who abstained from sex before marriage? Would that not seem discriminatory?

How about politics? Are you going to justified in excluding people of a different political affiliation from you from jobs, parties, or other events simply because their personal philosophy differs from mine and can be changed? No, it remains bigoted to do so.

Refusing to hire someone for a job is different, but again, if they’re extremely outspoken and don’t keep their religion to their self while on the job, then I wouldn’t want to hire them. No matter how much you try to do this, it not compelling or fair to equate not liking someone’s philosophy with not liking someone’s immutable characteristics.

This is truly where people draw a false line. Yes, homosexuality is more immutable and unchangeable than a religious philosophy, but mankind’s draw to religion is certainly immutable, and the passion and strength that causes a person to cling to such views are not changed as easily as deciding what to have for breakfast. How many people have died for their faith? Why were they so committed? In terms of influence and self-definition, I’m afraid that the characteristics of one’s faith are not as different from sexual preference as you seem to believe.

To the top