CP3S

For me:

TNG - Nothing to say about it, if you haven't seen it, then it probably isn't your thing. If you have seen it, then you know all about it.

DS9 - It does get pretty good. I haven't even seen all of it yet, but I really enjoy it.

VOY - So much crap in that series, but hidden among it all is some really good stuff. Being lost in an unknown part of space allowed the show to explore "strange new worlds" and tell some pretty interesting and bizarre sci-fi stories. I missed the last few seasons of the show, but I did download and watch the finale at one point.

And Picard will always be my favorite. I like the intellectual captain angle, the classic literature, and the earl grey tea.

TheBoost said:

Hey, it's me. said:

TheBoost said:

Hey, it's me. said:

And this is where the conflict stems from. Western Europe has increasingly become a more secular society over the years. The majority don't need religion to tell them how to live their lives. We've moved on. They don't like the way we live? Then stay in their own fucking country. That's all it boils down to.

The "way we live" is itself a troubling statement that can pretty much be used to justify anything, and oppress anyone.

So would you prefer to live under the rules of a western democracy, or under a Sharia controlled dictatorship? And make no mistake, Sharia Law is a dictatorship. Make your choice. The UK or Saudi Arabia?

Your false dichotomy is truly ridiculous.Truly, truly ridiculous.

 

Gaaaah! There really are lessons to be learned and precautions to be taken here. Unfortunately, you have one side that is far too willing to sit back and say, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander", like Bingo. While the other side makes ridiculous claims and drags it too far in the other direction.

Guys with views like Hey It's Me's makes guys with similar opinions to me on the subject look like loonies because we all get categorized together. 

Hey, it's me. said:

And make no mistake, Sharia Law is a dictatorship.

Um, no, it isn't.

Unless you are using some strange use of the word "dictatorship" which I wasn't previously aware of.

Bingowings said:

There are a lot of Muslims so the probability of finding a Muslim abuser of women is statistically higher than finding a Sikh abuser of women.

Sure, you find abusive men in any culture, or belief system. The difference here is that Islamic doctrine supports the abuse of women. You can't deny that women's rights are almost nonexistent in predominantly Islamic nations.

Mrebo said:

Indeed the torture and repression of the West backed 'democratic' regimes largely created Islamism as it is currently recognised.

My spell check notes that you've misspelled "recognized."

Silly American spell checker.

They aren't trying to "take over the world". But many of them do wish to practice their religion the way they do in their home countries, including the enforcement of Islamic laws and penal codes; and they are a rapidly growing minority in just about every country that accepts immigration. With current immigration rates continuing, this population is projected to eventually become the majority in multiple European countries, or at the very least a significant minority. That is where the "take over" part comes from. Not through uprising, conspiracy, some calamitous agenda, or any intentional or planned manner, but through basic statistics and the nature of democracy.  

Here is skimming the surface of the difference, and the crux of the issue:

How many cultures are there left in the world that still practice fundamental Judaism? I use Judaism because the extreme judicial sections of the Christian Bible are from the Old Testament, which was Judaism, the New Testament being the source literature of Christianity doesn't contain laws, rather it teaches to how to live as Christians under any number of legal systems as examples and forces of influence to those around and over them (give unto Caesar, pray for your leaders, light unto the world).

What country in the world still stones adolescence for disrespecting their parents, under the rules of Judaism? What country in the world still stones adulterous women, or forces their citizens to follow the strict Levitical laws of atonement for various crimes or even for normal biological occurrences (menses)?

The answer is none. Not even Israel practices these things, and they sure don't force their citizens to do them. Many of the things required in the Old Testament would even be illegal for a citizen to do in Israel.

However, you have numerous countries that practice and enforce the strict, violent, and misogynistic laws of Islam.

So naturally it is going to be a problem when immigration has pools of people from these places moving to modern and mostly secular countries who carry with them a desire to practice and uphold their religious laws. This is why we constantly hear talk about Sharia Law. We have continuous and rapidly growing communities of immigrants from these countries who feel it ought to be their religious right to practice Sharia law in their host countries.

It would be great to provide that kind of religious freedom to Muslim immigrants, unfortunately this form of law also brings along a lot of human rights violations. It wasn't that long ago I posted several stories on the prevalence of gang rapes in communities of immigrants from some of these countries in places like Sweden and France. It is out of control and the local police have a hard time policing it, because so many in those communities are behind it and keep it secret. Their attitudes are that it is their communities business, not the business of the secular French (or whatever country) government. It is the way they do things back home, the way their religion and culture teaches, and the proper way to do it. 

Anyone can see how this can become a real legit issue. It is great to be all multicultural, and to welcome immigration, be non judgmental, and have a laissez faire stance toward other religions and their practices. But a line has to be drawn. When it becomes a choice between being politically correct and pro-freedom of religion and human rights violations, then political correctness and freedom of religion are the things that need to take the dive.

Anybody play State of Decay yet? It looks pretty amazing. Thinking about buying it, it is only $20. Trying to figure out if I can justify an extra twenty bucks on video games this month, since I am going to be blowing $60 on The Last of Us next week.

Hey, it's me. said:

he looks like Russell Howard!! (He's an English comedian) shrug.

Shhhh! It's a secret to everybody.

No, she probably just uses both sites like you do, you caught her eye on one and she messaged you on the 1st, then was checking out the other site and "Oh hey, its the same guy I messaged yesterday?" clicked on your profile on that site as well.

And asking you how many women you slept with is kind of weird. If I were in that position, I'd find a playful way to avoid answering until I found out what kind of answer they were looking for. For some women there can be too many or too few. Maybe she was looking for "virgin sacrifices" or something. It is a really weird sort of question to ask someone right off the bat, and often a really weird question to ask someone in general. 

'Was Jesus a Time Lord'

doubleofive said:

If I were to write Star Trek / Star Wars "Marty Stu" Fan Fiction, it would be about a disgraced Star Destroyer fleet left in the Unknown Regions before by Thrawn, finding a wormhole to the Milky Way there, reporting it to the New Republic, and becoming the New Republic ambassadors to the Federation.

I may or may not have started that story in high school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=v69RuwsGv_I

Not quite the same as wearing skirts, but I own a lot of shoes. A few have varying degrees of utility, like my steel toe work boots, my hiking boots, my running shoes, and my all black dress shoes. But the majority are just-for-fun shoes. I am not even going to say how many pairs I own, I'd honestly have to physically count them, there are too many to recall off the top of my head. I've had male friends tease me about this, usually with the ever creative and all so original phrase, "Dude, you sure you're not gay?" And I've had girls take a peak in my closet and exclaim with concern (or jealousy?) that I have even more shoes than they do.

I really love shoes. Before I go out sometimes I try on different ones to see which look best with the outfit I am wearing. I love shoe shopping when I have female friends around to shoe shop with!* Obviously going alone is no fun, and attempting to get a male friend to shoe shop would be an invitation for teasing.

We expect women to be obsessed with shoes and own ridiculous amounts of them, while the norm for males is to own two or three pairs and wear them until they are worn out. There are so many gorgeous options out there! So many colors, so many styles. How can anyone own so few?

*Everywhere else I have ever lived I've made good close female friends. In my current location, even though I have been here almost two years, I've not yet managed to make any genuine female friends. Every time I think I've made a female friend, it doesn't take long before it turns out she is interested in more than friendship, then it becomes a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. They either end up feeling rejected and never talking to me again, or things start going in that other direction, burn hot, then fizzle fast and we move on. I am still trying to figure out exactly why I have this problem here when it has never been an issue for me before.

I don't think having order and society saying, "right you're a boy, and you're a girl" is a bad thing. It is something every culture does, I'm sure with effort it could be avoided, and if it can be, I don't think I'd want it to be. I enjoy that somethings are overtly feminine, I enjoy admiring femininity. Likewise, I enjoy my masculinity and the reality that I can connect with male friends and acquaintances in different way than I can connect with a female mate/partner/companion. I feel like we would lose out on a lot if we were to go out of our way to ensure everything for everyone, and blur the lines of distinction between genders.

The issue comes when people are chastised when they violate those social gender expectations. Some little boys want to play with dolls, so what? Instead we say that this is weird, trip over ourselves in a rush to pry the doll from his hands, and shove a GI Joe in one hand and a Nerf gun in the other. Some men like to wear skirts, and we decide they are either a "flamer" or they are crazy, and we don't take them seriously as a person.

I think I probably vary from Gaffer on this thought, but I do enjoy the fact that there is a distinction between men's clothing and women's clothing. I like that there are clothes designed to look great on a women, and clothes designed to look great on a man. Our bodies do have different shapes, after all. But I think it is about time we got over scratching our heads and declaring that something is afoul whenever someone really like a garment and decide they'd like to wear it regardless of what sex it is designed for.

Especially since this is only a one way turn-style. Women in khakis and a polo, a common male look, perfectly fine. Women in a business suit, another traditionally male look, perfectly fine. Hell, a women dressed in clothing traditional intended for men can be downright sexy, I'm thinking neck ties, suspenders, sweater vests, overalls, baseball caps. Our culture is more than fine with this. But a man puts on a skirt, and the reaction is, "What the fuck? This poor guy clearly has some kind of mental condition."

greenpenguino said:

Hey, it's me. said:

I think where our lines are getting crossed is yours is an American perspective and mine a British one. 

That's Bullshit. I'm British too and I share a similar mindset to Gaffer. (Although he can express it better than I can)

Damn, "You Just Don't Understand My Cultural Perspective" card fail. ;)

Hey It's Me, I don't think any lines are being crossed, but I do think you keep missing the points Gaffer is trying to make by a hair or two.

Example:

Hey, it's me. said:

What I'm trying to convey is that not every character conforms to the sexist stereotype your alluding to. If you grow up and mature into an adult and are convinced through so called brainwashing as a child that women are weak and only care about flowers and shit then your a weak minded fool. Women are mentally and emotionally stronger than men are and that is a widely held belief in the UK. So bearing THAT in mind, what are you trying to say? 

One time when I was kind of young I was helping my grandfather put in a sprinkling system. I was in the market for a new BB gun at the time, and earlier in the day he had been explaining to me that a longer barrel means your BBs will go farther.

Hours later, we are digging holes in the back yard and installing sprinklers. I asked him another question about BB guns regarding barrel length and distance, and he responds that that really has no bearing on the distance and that how far it sprays is determined by the water pressure more than anything else. At this point, I was talking BB guns and he was talking sprinklers.

This conversation keeps reminding me of that.

Much like my little childhood story I just shared, the above quote from you has practically zero connection to anything Gaffer has posted, unless I missed a post or two of his.

TheBoost said:

Hey, it's me. said:

The examples you use aren't exactly adult movies are they. Ripley from the Alien films is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Adult films for adults, not teenage guff.

Not totally sure what your point is. That we force gender roles on children through the media, but that all magically vanished when we're old enough to watch "Alien"?

This is actually slightly besides the point, but:

I love Alien, and it is cool that the main protagonist was a strong female, but then we still get to see her in the traditional role of playing eye candy for the benefit of male viewers at the end of the film while waltzing around in her panties. Same thing with Princess Leia, we're giving a strong female protagonist, and in the third film we objectify the shit out of her for the first however many minutes of the film.

We still force these characters into the expected gender roles, Leia is a strong character you wouldn't want to mess with, then BAM, she's imprisoned, vulnerable, and naked and needs a boy to come save her. But then again, I guess she started off the first film as the damsel in distress anyway.

But is this even that big of a deal anymore? I feel like our society is meeting equilibrium when it comes to objectification, you have shows like Spartacus that shows lingering close up shots of muscular men wearing next to nothing, and while you see plenty of female nudity in that show, they also hang plenty of dong on screen. True Blood is much the same way, equal opportunity objectification. And you get films like Magic Mike drawing in large female crowds.

That is the thing I like about the Dawn of the Dead remake, it can happily co-exist with the original. It is more of a homage to Romero's classic than a retelling of it. The stories are extremely different, and feature completely different characters. There are very few similarities beyond the title, the zombies, and the iconic setting of the shopping mall, which I think it is a good thing. 

I love the original, IMHO the best of Romero's films, with the exception of the original Night of the Living Dead of course. And I also love Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. I feel like it is one of the best made, if not the best made, modern zombie movie out there.

Oh yeah, and freaking Sarah Polley! I've had a sort of thing for that girl since the first time I saw The Adventures of Baron Von Munchhausen (before you find that icky, I should say that the actress is older than me, and I was about eight years old the first time I saw that film, which is about the age she was when it was made). 

If I were to list five essential zombie films, it would be Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, 28 Days Later, and Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake/homage.

Gaffer Tape said:

the idea that a woman must cover up her own face to be attractive is so depressing to me

Damn, I wish I had used those exact words somewhere in my post. That about sums it up perfectly.

Warbler said:

twister111 said:

 

Hey, it's me. said:

I can't see skirts ever becoming unisex attire. Hairy legs do not suit skirts and men haven't got hour glass figures.

So what about a girl who's figure isn't skinny? Or another girl who is but refuses to shave her legs? Would you also be against them wearing skirts?

 

I would hope a women that refuses to shave her legs would were a dress long enough to cover the legs.   

Hair on a women's legs just doesn't look right.

Aaaannnd, we're back on topic! Which is cool, because I have long been proud to be a feminist, and was a little disappointed that actual topic didn't make it passed the first few posts of the thread. (But the direction that we veered off in was equally interesting discussion).

The convention that women should be virtually hairless is silly and it is a bit of an oppressive requirement, You must spent X amount of time purging your body of its natural hair, otherwise you are just gross.

I actually know a few women who do not shave their legs or arm pits. As someone else said, it is kind of intriguing. While I am conditioned to like silky smooth hairless women's bodies as much as the next guy, I find myself kind of attracted to the woman who doesn't shave. Nonconformity to silly conventions that have been in place since times when women were much less respected and valued as individuals is kind of sexy to me.

Warbler compared women shaving their bodies to men shaving their faces, but men have the option. I have a beard, and while some women love my beard, others hate it. But nobody thinks it is gross, disgusting, and shudders or gags when they think of men with facial hair, while these reactions seem to be pretty standard when the topic of hairy legged women or women with unshaved underarms comes up. That is a lot of pressure rammed into a girl from a young age, and it is really sad; if you don't do this, nobody will ever love you or find you desirable.

Makeup fits under much the same category. My ex-wife rarely wore makeup, and when she did it was barely a noticeable amount. She had clear skin and a good complexion, was very pretty, and looked perfectly fine without it. She graduated university and went into the job market of the business suit wearing world of economics and finance (and yes, she is probably making several times my annual income these days). Even though she looked perfectly fine and blemish free without makeup, even though she was in the modern pant suit wearing business world, her career adviser at her university suggested if she wanted to do well in her career, she had better start using makeup. Apparently, when it comes to women, painting your face is a sign that you take care of yourself, regardless of how nice your hair and clothes look and how well groomed you are, no makeup on a women equals slob.

If women want to purge their bodies of hair, or paint their faces, then more power to them. But it bothers me that social expectations say they must otherwise they are unattractive, unwomanly, unemployable, and unpleasant.

generalfrevious said:

Well it's directed by Zack Snyder (which should set up a red flag) but Christopher Nolan is involved; it could be okay. But why is Superman bearded in parts of the film? Otherwise there seems to be a good cast here, but Snyder is my biggest concern.

I am actually really looking forward to it, probably more than any other movie this year. So far, I have enjoyed all of Zack Snyder's direction, I think he has a good eye for interesting visuals. I love the Dawn of the Dead remake; I really enjoyed the stylistic visuals of 300 and how true it was to the source material; same with Watchmen, but it was perhaps too faithful to the graphic novel most of the time, yet my biggest complaint about the film is the ending that greatly strays from the original; and I even enjoyed Sucker Punch to a certain degree, it was a mess of a movie and kind of fails at what it was trying to say by becoming little more than what it was meant to condemn, but the atmosphere of that film has a very attractive grittiness to it.

Zack Snyder directing with Nolan producing, I honestly couldn't ask for anything better. Casting seems really great too. Of course, now that I am really excited about it, it will probably be a massive disappointment to me even if it is pretty good.

TV's Frink said:

Although I'm not 100% sure because I don't remember her having any lines.  She may not be transgender, but she had big arms, a bald head, and some distracting makeup.

I was thinking transgender too when I saw her. But I guess she could just be a bigger framed girl who likes that close cut look.

Ah, you took it as Warb stating what he thought must be the obvious in a sarcastic sort of way. The lack of a question mark at the end does seem to indicate that is the case.

Bingowings said:

Why don't you go upstairs under the pretense of having a headache and asking to borrow some asprins and casually ask if everything is okay while you are there?

If your neighbour asks why, explain that your headache has just made you more sensitive to sound and you could help notice the crying child but you understand this is the sort of thing children do.

If you play it right you will get the sort of reassurance you want without looking like a nosy busy body.

It is actually next door, and not upstairs, and in my time zone it was 1:30 in the morning, well past the appropriate time to go knocking on the neighbor's door. I went out and had a smoke, then came back in. The crying had stopped, but I still felt unsettled and had trouble sleeping for a while. It seems my bedroom shares a wall with a small child's bedroom.

I am now extremely bothered by this. I had a particularly taxing day at work yesterday and went straight home to go to bed, rather than going out like I usually do. Sometimes my Saturday nights involve having a female friend over for the night. The realization that there is a little kid sleeping just on the other side of the wall, the very wall my headboard is pushed up against, is really bothering me now. I can't stop thinking about how some of those noises may be making their way through the wall and are being heard by a little kid...

:(

Warbler said:

Hey, it's me. said: There a forms of attire that are specifically related and designed for the sexes. And skirts, along with high heels and blouses etc are for women. Just the way it is. Somethings will never change...lol :-D (love that tune)

this ^  a thousand times over.

I'm going to suggest a new tune here, a much older and more timeless tune. Bob Dylan's Times They Are A-changin'.

Everything changes. We used to wear very different clothes than we do now. Just 100 years ago we wore very different clothes than we do now. Just 200 years ago we wore very different clothes than we did now and 100 years ago. Men wearing wigs, makeup, and high heels was once in some places the equivalent of a tuxedo.

Somethings will never change? Please, let's not be so silly! Who knows what fashion will bring in another 100 years time. In another 200 years time. 300 years time. In your lifetimes, clothing styles will change and vary a lot, but perhaps not that much. The clothes your children wear will be very different from your own, but the clothes your grandchildren and great-grandchildren wear will be extremely different, the clothes your great-great-grandchildren and beyond wear will be unrecognizable.

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

strange.   I wonder why.

So you are saying because CP3S sees these urinals in the gay bars he's been to gay people go to the toilet to look at each other?

Hmm, clearly I assumed he meant the "Not sure if serious" in regard to whether or not I was serious that I went to gay bars, not whether or not I was serious if the gay bars I had gone to used trough-urinals. Likewise, I assumed his, "Strange.  I wonder why." was aimed at wondering why I would go to a gay bar, since I am straight, not wondering why the gay bars I have been to might have had trough-style urinals.

Now that you took his wondering why the other way, I am no longer quite sure which one he meant.

I live in the most culturally devoid part of the world I could possibly imagine, and I had never wandered into a gay bar prior to living here, so it probably is just the places I have been to, and not the norm for American gay bars.

However, looking at other dudes while they pee may not be the reason for going to the toilet (I'm assuming the reason for that is a full bladder), but they certainly do just that in there.

When I am there my comfort zone usually leads me to the one and only stall in the place (even though it has no door). But on one particularly drunk occasion, I really, really had to go. Upon arriving in the bathroom I found a few guys peeing in the trough, with a large clump of guys lined up behind them. As the two that had been urinating left, the next in line approached the urinal, an extremely attractive twenty-something. As he undid his pants he said over his shoulder, "Come on guys, don't be shy, there is plenty of room for more than one." No one budged. Drunk and about to burst at the seams, I said screw it to my comfort zone, took the spot beside him. As I was undoing my pants, he said, "Don't worry, I'm not going to look..." and as soon as I had it out finished the delayed sentence with "...MUCH!" and craned his head over to stare directly at it for several seconds.

I was drunk enough to find this incredibly amusing, and even responded with, "I feel like I should let you know that I am a bit more of a grower than a shower." Which got, "Oh, me too! Well... Okay, not really, I'm a grower AND a shower!" As we washed our hands beside each other, he sighed and commented on how he'd had nearly every gay cock in that place as well as several of the straight ones, and really needed some fresh blood. I got out of that somewhat awkward conversation by informing him that I was there with my girlfriend. 

But yeah, peeking at the trough-urinal happens. Though I am sure it usually doesn't turn into awkward propositions.

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

Of course I am being serious. Most gay bars I have been to use trough-style urinals.

strange.   I wonder why.

I'm going to go with Gaffer and Greenie here and say, why not?

But then I'll be less frustrating and give a straight forward answer as well.

Where I live now I feel more like a fish out of water than I have anywhere else I have ever been. I've always thrived in foreign countries and in other cultures, because I enjoy getting out of my comfort zone and experiencing new things. The level of culture shock I've experienced here has always been really alarming to me. It was completely unexpected, I used to feel like I could find things to embrace and enjoy in practically any culture. This caused me to start seeking out subcultures to mingle with. I've really had some good times and met some really fun people at gay venues in this area. It turns out there are a lot of straight people like myself that hang out at these venues as well.

It sure beats your typical bar filled with unattractive middle aged people watching one of the dozens of sports showing on the 23 flat screen televisions they have covering the walls of the place; or your typical club filled with half naked anorexic people bumping and grinding on each other to shitty music and desperately looking for someone to go home with before the place closes; or worse of all, the line dancing clubs filled with fat girls and under 21's in bare midriffs and cowboy hats and creepers in cowboy boots with lassos all dancing to country music (they seriously stop the music and make everyone stand for the national anthem once every night). I'm not even going to mentioned the pretentious hipster venues.

Gay clubs are much more simple, just a bunch of people from different walks of society enjoying drinks and conversation with one another, the dancing is all over the place with everyone on the dance floor doing whatever they like.

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

Let's say I want to engage in sexual relations with some dude, or I aspire to become a women when I can afford it; how does this make things complicated for you?

hello?  we were just talking about one of the complications in this very thread before I made my 'nazi statement'.

Wait, the public restroom thing?! I guess I just see that as an extremely small issue. I have mused over which restroom transsexuals or cross dressers may use before, but it was never more than just musing. I've never seen it as a genuine issue or complication.

Warbler said:

this coming from the guy that once defended the ban on gays openly serving in the military due to all the complications that arise from gay and straight soldiers using the same bathrooms and showers, sleeping in the same rooms, and using the same foxholes. 

Part of what I argued was related to the issue that many in the military are good ole' country boys, and near and peeing next to gay guys would be hard on morale. I'd probably feel slightly ashamed if I went back and read some of my older posts in this thread.

The reality is, YOU have been one of the many factors that has helped me open my mind on this particular topic, as well as other topics. Which made your views expressed in here all the more surprising to me.

Trying to sleep and there is small child crying in the apartment next door. For some reason I'm finding it extremely unsettling and I can't quite place exactly why.

The insulation is good and I can barely hear it, yet my skin is crawling, my toes are curling, and my stomach is twisting at the sound. I have no clue why.