Jeebus

Hot dog stuffed in a pickle and then fried.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

F, Marry, Kill:

A duck, a tortoise, a gay dolphin.

I have heard that dolphins are a really good lay, but they’re also the most intelligent of the animals there, so I think I’d marry a gay dolphin.

I would fuck the duck, only because it rhymes.

And kill the tortoise.

Wasn’t she in the Matt the Radar Technician skit? I thought that was funny.

Robot uprising is coming soon.

Yen Rebellion

darth_ender said:

Jeebus said:

Haven’t heard that quote before, but I’m skeptical of it’s legitimacy. I value things like this;

more than a single quote that he may or may not have said.

Here’s one of the many quotes that contradict the one you’ve posted; “We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian.”

Look at this with an open mind, please.

Even if Hitler wasn’t a Christian, the overwhelming majority of people who committed his atrocities for him were. And if that’s the case, then I could have just as easily said;

Jeebus said:

Do you? The homogenous group of Christians known as we believes in loving everyone, even their enemies? Maybe you personally do, but these guys don’t;

Here was where I planned to introduce Communism with pictures of the Red Army and The League of Militant Atheists.

And while I can see the display of the KKK, as these men justified their evil with religion, the Nazis were evil due to their devotion to the state, and some of them happened to be religious. There were atheists among the Nazis as well. And for all the diverse and contradictory quotes, the infallible Wikipedia tells us that most scholars believed it was Hitler’s intent to eradicate Christianity from the Third Reich ultimately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

Looks like my Nazi picture got scaled down, that’s too bad. When I made that claim I was more sure that Hitler was a Catholic/Christian… whatever, but MFM’s quote was interesting. I’m still skeptical of it’s legitimacy, but I have reconsidered whether Hitler was a Christian for political reasons, or it was his true belief.

I’m not sure what’s so bad about Wikipedia, though. It’s good as a resource for finding better sources. All those little bracketed numbers are other sources that you can look through, and Wikipedia is more of a repository of that information.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jeebus said:

I disagree, I’ve never seen an atheist lobbying about the evils of Buddhism. They focus on Islam and Christianity. Islam because it inspires terrorism, and contributes to the oppression of women and gays. Christianity because of the few Christian politicians who try to incorporate their religion into politics. Tennessee tried to get the Bible to be the official state book, but luckily the governor vetoed it. That’s the kind of thing that atheists fight against.

My problem with a lot of American atheist activists (I can’t speak for ender) is that they fail to see the obvious contrast between the problems we’re seeing within Islam relative to Christianity. As scary as Tennessee making the Bible the official state book is, it pales in comparison to your previous sentence. That’s not to say that they don’t have a point on that issue, but a lot of atheists not only ignore the problems within Islam, but actively defend Islam. That’s what blows my mind.

I agree. I think a lot of atheists are afraid to criticize Islam because they don’t want to be called racist (which is predicated on the idea that all Muslims are Middle Eastern, which is not true) or any other slanderous names. I think that if any religion needs criticism, it’s Islam.

DominicCobb said:

First of all: not a remake.

What is a remake, then? I was under the impression that they were ‘overriding’ the canon of the previous Ghostbusters movies, making this the only Ghostbusters.

Second of all: if any film in this franchise is a cash grab that shits directly into the mouth of the “beloved classic” it is Ghostbusters II.

That’s fair.

Third of all, your Star Wars comparison is completely inapt. Star Wars was not a comedy so casting comedic actors would obviously not be a good idea. Furthermore, Sandler and James are two of the absolute worst comedic actors “working” today, whereas Ghostbusters features some of the best and freshest comedic talent of today (male or female) in McKinnon, Wiig, McCarthy, Jones, and etc. Whether or not they are at their absolute best here is a different debate.

I guess that’s a matter of opinion, but I’m not a big fan of McCarthy, I think she suffers from Johnny Depp syndrome. She seems to play the same character in every movie, and it starts to get old.

darth_ender said:

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

Let me ask you an honest pair of questions. Yes, of course there will be follow-up, though it may be several days before I can spare a few minutes to return to this. Here they are:

Has religion contributed any evil to this world? Please cite examples, and be fair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Evil things are done in the name of religion, but that does not make them speak for all religion. Nor do all religious or religious people bear the sins of those who have committed evil in their name.

Also, just because crimes are committed by people who are religious does not mean you can ascribe their crime to being religious.

Actually I can, it’s pretty easy to do when terrorists are going around screaming “Allahu akbar” and named their organization the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Perhaps I misinterpret your point, though.

So ultimately, while evil has contributed evil to this world, I caution you not to paint all of religion as evil based on what some have done with it.

Has atheism contributed any evil to this world? Please cite examples, and be fair.

Not that I know of, but I assume you’re gonna refer to the Communist regime of Stalin. As far as I know, the actions of Stalin were not committed in the name of atheism, he did it because he wanted power. Stripping people’s religion from them was an effective demoralization tactic, so that’s what he did. And it’s not like communist Russia was a godless society, their god was the state. Bear in mind, I don’t know a whole lot about communist Russia.

Now there are points where I would bring up Communist regimes like the USSR, but I wasn’t planning on doing so yet. Since you brought it up, however, let’s go ahead and address it.

First, it’s always easiest to state that the Soviet Union exercised a religion wherein the state was the object of worship. Really that would be more accurate of Fascism/Nazism, whereas there was more of a personality cult surrounding Lenin and Stalin, and there was an ideology that demanded exclusive devotion. One could not be a member of any political party except the Communist Party, and anything else was seen as disloyal. But such excuses do not pardon the fact that this was a nation that actively fought against belief in God or other organized “traditional” religion. There were no rites, holy books, or prayers. What existed was propaganda, suppression of dissension, and cover-ups of the crimes of the leaders and the Union as a whole. But the nation was, for all intents and purposes, actively atheist.

Which leads to my second point: any ideology can be used for evil. How many atheists have called for the destruction of religion. Look at the likes of Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and others. They cling not only to an ideology, but in fact are so firm in their conviction, so aggressive in their stance, so negative in their rhetoric, so once-sided in their arguments that…one could almost consider them a religion! Sure, they are not as severe as the USSR, but really the same ideological purity exists on a lighter level there. But how tolerant are they of other viewpoints? Do you think they put up with atheist fortune tellers? Atheist Jains, Buddhists, or Confucianists?

I disagree, I’ve never seen an atheist lobbying about the evils of Buddhism. They focus on Islam and Christianity. Islam because it inspires terrorism, and contributes to the oppression of women and gays. Christianity because of the few Christian politicians who try to incorporate their religion into politics. Tennessee tried to get the Bible to be the official state book, but luckily the governor vetoed it. That’s the kind of thing that atheists fight against.

But to return to my original reason for asking these questions, let’s recap:

Yes, there is evil committed because of religion.

However, as atheism is not an ideology (supposedly), there cannot be any evil because of it.

But then it begs the questions:

What good has religion contributed to the world?

Though I think it’s misguided, it gives people emotional comfort.

And if atheism is not an ideology and cannot contribute evil, then how can atheism contribute any good?

It can’t, and it doesn’t have to.

DominicCobb said:

Jeebus said:

DominicCobb said:

Agreed but the fact that this was maybe the only queef joke I think I’ve seen in any movie tells me that there’s a taboo there

I don’t know how that’s what you would get out of that. It tells me that most writers recognize that queef jokes aren’t funny and decided not to make any.

I don’t even know why I bothered bringing this up. It’s all really besides the point.

Anyway, you’re honestly telling me that all the writers of movies with dick jokes, nut sack jokes, fart jokes, etc. drew the line at queef jokes because of course those aren’t funny?

I don’t think the person writing dick jokes is the same person saying that queef jokes aren’t funny. In other words, if the writer is such an unfunny hack that they think that dick jokes are funny, they probably think queef jokes are funny too.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I don’t know what a “queef” is, and I don’t wanna know.

I think it’s important to note that queef is not exactly a common term, most people don’t know what it is. And jokes don’t really work if you don’t know what they’re referencing.

DominicCobb said:

Agreed but the fact that this was maybe the only queef joke I think I’ve seen in any movie tells me that there’s a taboo there

I don’t know how that’s what you would get out of that. It tells me that most writers recognize that queef jokes aren’t funny and decided not to make any.

What’s with the GTA font?

Even if your posts are “useless”, I always welcome more activity on the forum.

yhwx said:

Jeebus said:

Fixed.

One-upped

DominicCobb said:

I also think there’s something to be said about the mere inclusion of a queef joke as something resembling progress in how we deal with certain feminine taboos.

Vaginal fart jokes are empowering ;^)

I beg to differ.

DominicCobb said:

As for the sexism thing, I realize that’s not the only reason people are angry but it’s definitely a reason. Just because personally you don’t care that it’s women doesn’t mean lots of other people don’t. There are plenty of commenters out there who make that clear.

Those are called trolls. They do that sort of thing, post inflammatory statements for attention. I seriously doubt most of those people hold those beliefs.

Not everyone mad about the new Ghostbusters is a misogynist but lots of people mad about the new Ghostbusters are.

I don’t think you can know that. I’m not so cynical to say that lots of people hate women.

Not to say if this same movie as advertised featured males it wouldn’t get hate but I think the astronomically high levels of hate we’re seeing are clear signs that misogyny is having some impact.

Or it’s because it looked like an awful cash grab remake that shits directly into the mouth of the beloved classic it was based on. As I said, it’s like a shitty Adam Sandler remake of STAR WARS. Do you want Kevin James as Han Solo? I don’t.

Not to belittle you guys but it’s unfortunate that the debate I’m having about this movie is whether it’s just some piece of garbage that should never have been made. I mostly liked the film but I do have complaints that I’d love to talk about but it’s a shame when the conversation is just about whether it’s completely unfunny (which is most certainly not the case) and not a deeper talk about the filmmaking and where things went wrong there (though of course I know people some people are picking up on that but perhaps don’t quite know how to pin point what’s not so great).

Well please do talk about it. That’s what this thread is for. I’m basing my thoughts solely on the trailers and I’ve seen people say that the trailers made the movie look a lot worse than it actually was.

I will show them the bark side.

moviefreakedmind said:

Ray

moviefreakedmind said:

Just so everyone knows, I like a lot of films with incredibly strong female characters in them (as they mentioned in the review). For example Alien and Scream.

The sexism narrative is totally bunk. I don’t hate women, but the Ghostbusters trailers looked like trash. It was verging on disrespectful of the source material. It would be like a STAR WARS remake starring Adam Sandler.

I really enjoyed the Blackened Mantle, but that’s more of an overhaul than an edit. I recommend watching this one, it was posted a couple days ago. Be sure to leave some feedback, I’d do it myself but I haven’t gotten around to watching it yet, since I’ve got a lot of movies on my backlog.

Absolutely, just check out these guns.

Hands can be pretty dangerous, you can do all kinds of horrible things with them.