Mrebo

:(

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV's Frink said:

 God, this is terrifying!

 The disappointment on Luke's face is palpable.

Anchorhead said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Another thing I don't appreciate is all the prequel trilogy-haters stating their opinions as if they're fact. They hardly ever say "in my opinion..."

Step lightly, 37.   You'll get more rope than we would on your board, but there is a limit.  Careful with the accusations as well.

OBI-WAN37 said:

They are utterly mind-blowingly fantastic films.

Quite right, Anchorhead. I've made the point before, but it's simply weak phrasing to say "in my opinion" or "I think," when expressing an opinion. It's useful if one really needs to make clear something is opinion or to express doubt about one's position on something (I think his car is blue), but in general it's an unnecessary disclaimer, I think. See how silly that is!

Also, people are right about the openness of this site. There are members here who don't hate the PT, and some who even like it. Most of us recognize the serious flaws but most focus is on appreciation of the OT. Except for those Ewok-haters. Ewoks are awesome! In my opinion, because you know, maybe they're not awesome but I only think they are.

*leaving thread, hopefully never to return to it*

ok, but I still ask why must the Government make a value judgment in who can get married other an than that the parties wanting to marry are consenting adults? 

It decides whether 2 or more people. It decides an age requirement. It decides whether to make an exception for age if parents consent to the marriage. It decides whether certain family members can marry. That marriage be between (two) consenting adults is not written in stone - setting aside religious views. You proceed as if it is all just so obvious, but it involves a variety of value judgments.

Mrebo said:

No one is asking them to sanction the relations, only government.   Did it ever occur to you that maybe the government shouldn't be taking a side in this debate?   Only way to for government to not a take a side is allow homosexuals to legally marry.  

This is a great error. We are supposed to have a government of the people. In a democratic system like ours, the majority is supposed to rule, constrained only by those rules we've all agreed upon (ie the Constitution).

yes, but it is not dictatorship by majority.   The majority isn't supposed to have total control over the minority.  We should be constrained by more than just what is in the Constitution.   We have inalienable rights that are given to us by nature, not even the Constitution can remove those.  There is also the idea that we are supposed to be free.    Just because it right to marry whomever we want isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean the government(or the majority) should be us(or the minority) who we can and can't marry.

To hear you praising natural rights is a welcome development! The Constitution seeks to protect those natural rights by preventing government action. This all gets back to the distinction I was making originally between personal activity not relying upon a government action and activity within under a government scheme (like marriage, for example). You keep ignoring that legal marriage is a creation of government.

Mrebo said:

 To say the government shouldn't take a side in a debate is to say the people (or at least certain people) shouldn't take a side in the debate.

wrong.  government is not the same as the people.   Do you think the government should have a role in deciding which religion is superior?  But the people can certainly decide that one is superior. 

Individuals absolutely can decide that. And our Constitution explicitly forbids us from making such a decision through government. Which proves my point made above. I've told this story here before, but in Kindergarten we had a class vote on our favorite color. I voted blue. Most people (or maybe just a plurality) voted red. The teacher declared that red was the class's favorite color. I started crying because it was NOT my favorite color. I felt like it was being imposed upon me. But that wasn't the point of the vote. I still had my favorite color of blue, but as a class it was red. It was a collective decision. You speak of government as the teacher herself just deciding that our personal favorite colors are what she says.

Mrebo said:

The government does increasingly feel like a foreign entity over which we don't really exercise any control, but that is the danger.

I am not trying to limit our control of government, merely limit its control over us.   When the government says we can't marry half the population, don't you think it is exercising control over us? 

The point is that the government IS us. The collective us. We limit government by limiting what we can do through it. I believe that is good and valuable. You had little problem with government deciding we must buy health insurance. The question when it comes to marriage is whether the gender limitation serves a valid purpose for the governmental scheme of marriage - because it is a governmental scheme. If you feel it does not, that is your own personal value judgment. Democracy permits us, collectively, to decide gay marriage should be legal. In any government scheme, the government exercises control. Whether it is valid or not is another question.

Mrebo said:

The only way for the government to truly not take a side is to not maintain the system of legal marriage.

I disagree but I would consider getting the government out of the marriage business.

Why disagree? If there were only private marriages, then government is not exercising marital control. It would not be telling first cousins not to marry, for example. However, some 'marriages' would become illegal - like those between minors and adults since parental consent would not matter.

no, its not.  Barely anyone in the country approves of what the Westboro nutcases do.   We merely approve of them having the right to do so.

And we do this by NOT making laws. If we are to be honest, most of us don't approve of them having the right to do so, but begrudgingly accept it as a price of the freedom of speech. I still think their protests at funerals could be constitutionally limited.

DuracellEnergizer said:

TheBoost said:

You're not only pigeonholing atheists, but you're having the presumption and gall to tell them what they believe. 

In what way am I pigeonholing atheists or telling them what they believe?

Atheists are permitted to make conclusions about religious belief, but never the other way round ;]

Apologies for late reply. When stressed, I lose appetite for much social interaction, even if just online.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Mrebo said:

It should be respected when people sincerely advocate for positions based on their religious views, including advocating for laws.

So in your opinion it should be respected if a Muslim were to advocate for laws requiring women to completely cover themselves in public or if a Jewish person were advocate for laws banning the eating of pork products?

It is a good question. I draw a distinction between laws that outlaw a personal activity (like women being uncovered/people eating pork/people 'practicing' homosexuality) and laws that operate through a government program (like marriage/health insurance contraception requirement/sex education in schools). The latter category requires value judgments.

I fail to understand this distinction you are making, and surely you can see the problems that can happen when you ask the government to make value judgments.

My point there is that the government must necessarily make value judgments when it seeks to implement certain programs. Take sex education for example. The government must determine what is appropriate and desirable to teach children. That involves value judgments. It's not a strict science.

The distinction I'm drawing is between those necessary kind of value judgments needed to implement a government program and attempts to forbid/compel people from engaging in personal activity. This was in response to your hypothetical of seeking to ban the eating of pork products and compelling women to cover themselves. The distinction is that the government would be seeking to regulate personal activity - not creating its own program necessarily requiring some value judgments.

Mrebo said:

The first category seeks to oppress personal activity. I don't think oppression is respectable simply because it is religiously motivated.* Many people feel not including homosexual relationships under marriage is itself oppressive. This makes total sense if one sees no difference between gay and straight relationships. The issue is that for many religious people, there is a substantive difference, and at least in the context of the government program of marriage, they cannot in good conscience sanction the relationships as equals.

No one is asking them to sanction the relations, only government.   Did it ever occur to you that maybe the government shouldn't be taking a side in this debate?   Only way to for government to not a take a side is allow homosexuals to legally marry.  

This is a great error. We are supposed to have a government of the people. In a democratic system like ours, the majority is supposed to rule, constrained only by those rules we've all agreed upon (ie the Constitution). To say the government shouldn't take a side in a debate is to say the people (or at least certain people) shouldn't take a side in the debate. The government does increasingly feel like a foreign entity over which we don't really exercise any control, but that is the danger. The only way for the government to truly not take a side is to not maintain the system of legal marriage.

Mrebo said:

Some Christians take the position that legal marriage doesn't mean that much and broadly permissive rules are not a sign of approval.

it isn't a sign of approval.   I agree that the Westboro baptists ought to be allowed to hold their views on homosexuality, but that isn't a sign of approval of those views is it? 

Per my comments above, in a democracy it is a sign of approval. Not necessarily by every individual of course, but by majority rule.

Mrebo said:

It should be respected when people sincerely advocate for positions based on their religious views, including advocating for laws.

So in your opinion it should be respected if a Muslim were to advocate for laws requiring women to completely cover themselves in public or if a Jewish person were advocate for laws banning the eating of pork products?

It is a good question. I draw a distinction between laws that outlaw a personal activity (like women being uncovered/people eating pork/people 'practicing' homosexuality) and laws that operate through a government program (like marriage/health insurance contraception requirement/sex education in schools). The latter category requires value judgments. The first category seeks to oppress personal activity. I don't think oppression is respectable simply because it is religiously motivated.* Many people feel not including homosexual relationships under marriage is itself oppressive. This makes total sense if one sees no difference between gay and straight relationships. The issue is that for many religious people, there is a substantive difference, and at least in the context of the government program of marriage, they cannot in good conscience sanction the relationships as equals. If this is as hateful as anti-miscegenation laws, then that is an indictment against the bible insofar as we read it as declaring homosexual relations sinful.

Some Christians take the position that legal marriage doesn't mean that much and broadly permissive rules are not a sign of approval.

*Going back to the oppression of personal activity idea, things like drug laws can pose a problem as many people would oppress that activity for a variety of moral and perhaps religious reasons....yet so many are okay with that kind of oppression. Maybe absolute consistency of principle is not desirable?

I continue to be disappointed at the lack of sex-appeal in this thread, though I blame myself just as much. Isn't there something other than gay marriage? Ooh, a game! Would you think differently of the person above you if you found out (s)he were gay (video link just for fun)?

I have all my stuff. Even plenty of the 90s stuff. My mother went "shopping" for Christmas gifts in my old bedroom for the grandchildren. I wouldn't be too concerned about some of the newer stuff, but not the 12" Luke and Tauntaun and she ultimately left it all alone. My significant other assures me it can all be placed in the basement of a future house :/

MrBrown said:

And here is the point:

Sure the anti-homosexual-marriage demonstrants have their right to say "In my opinion it is not right that homosexuals get married." But often it is more that they don't express their opinion, but try to act against the people trying to get equality rights. (And there are also exsamples the way around, not questioning that.)

In my opinion the anti-homosexual-marriage movement is very wrong, because they base (I would say "all") their arguments on hate and antique texts, which have nothing to do with a stat legislative.

You see the difference between the sentence: "homosexuals shall burn" and "I don't believe you are right with equal marriage rights."

With whom you would prefer to discuss the topic? :)

I grant you that it is problematic from a legal standpoint when people only refer to the bible to make their case. Yet for believers, the bible is not merely an antique text (and certainly not hateful). For them, it is the truth. Thus when a law is proposed that in their view sanctions something immoral, it is natural for them to oppose it. It would be quite weird for someone to assert a moral belief but consider it somehow less legitimate because it is religious. And Christians believe a great many will "burn" for a great many reasons - primarily if one does not accept Jesus. That doesn't mean one cannot have a reasonable discussion with Christians.

There are alternative views for Christians to hold on marriage. For instance I know one evangelical who views homosexuality as immoral yet believes the government should have no role in marriage, which he sees as a religious sacrament quite different in nature from legal marriage, even as it exists for straight people. Sort of the difference between Christmas (Santa Version) and Christmas (Jesus Version).

It should be respected when people sincerely advocate for positions based on their religious views, including advocating for laws. Part of the difficulty is that many Christians see homosexuality as an activity, whereas same-sex marriage advocates see homosexuality as an identity - the former view I think is evident in RO_2's posts. I see no hate in RO_2's or ender's posts but I think far too many people may take it that way.

TV's Frink said:

Sure, I can get away from Christianity in America.  I just have to stay in my house, turn off the tv and radio, stay off the internet, and not get my mail.

Sure, churches have the right to be exclusionary.  But you're kidding yourself if you think they can't force their beliefs down other's throats.  Ask Gay Californians.

Is it oppressive to you that so many people in this country are Christian? Religious people can and should be able to advocate their beliefs. Just as should ethical vegans, atheists and anyone else. The link shows that religious people take their views public and stand by them. Whether religious or not, there are all kinds of laws forcing beliefs down others' throats.

Atheism as #firstworldproblem

Although, Leonardo conveniently pre-responds:

As someone who does not need theism, I don't feel like I'm using "my superior intellect versus a primitive mind" cause I'll be the first to admit, I am a moron. I'll just say, try to look beyond your postulates. It ain't so bad.

I'm a theist. RO_2 makes many good observations on various viewpoints. And I agree with much of what Duracell has to say, particularly:

DuracellEnergizer said:

I don't currently subscribe to theologically conservative, inerrant Christianity because I find -- from what is admittedly only a theologically-uneducated layman's POV -- vast chunks of the Bible to be either internally inconsistent or historically inaccurate. I do think there could be validity to theologically liberal, non-inerrant forms of Christianity, though.

I also don't subscribe to atheism. I find it presumptuous to reach such a conclusion when mankind hasn't even reached full understanding of the physical universe, let alone what might be beyond it. Also, on a more emotional note, I'm not comfortable with the nihilism I believe is inherent in an atheistic universe.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Anchorhead said:

For me, there wasn't enough of the Doctor saying goodbye to Clara or her getting to say goodbye to him. As an actress and definitely as the character, she deserved much more.

Capaldi was a shock. More so than I expected. I hope I'm surprised as the season progresses, but honestly, I feel like this will be a struggle for me.

And I agree about Capaldi feeling like more of a shock than I had imagined, but not in a good way.

 Why is Capaldi a shock?  We've known for a while that he was going to be the next Doctor.

Like Falcon said, "Unlike the Tenth and Eleventh Doctors, he did not genuinely amuse in his opening moments." It was shocking how totally uninteresting an introduction we had to him, like they were trying to stick him in the persona of those other Doctors and it just didn't work. I think it's that things can feel differently than how we imagine them in our heads.

Anchorhead said:

For me, there wasn't enough of the Doctor saying goodbye to Clara or her getting to say goodbye to him. As an actress and definitely as the character, she deserved much more.

Capaldi was a shock. More so than I expected. I hope I'm surprised as the season progresses, but honestly, I feel like this will be a struggle for me.

And I agree about Capaldi feeling like more of a shock than I had imagined, but not in a good way.

I recommend visiting combom.co.uk for interesting Who updates and whatnot...

There wasn't too much story to it and the audience was left to guess on much, even where it was mostly explained. Whatever story there was didn't ultimately matter, at all. The Doctor's regeneration was anticlimactic, immediately preceded by major fan service. Too much deus ex machina, even for Who. Capaldi's first words were lame. There were things to like, brought in from previous episodes, but it was in vain.

Jaitea said:

After bigging up the 50th Anniversary show/movie tonight's Xmas Regeneration episode was a real let down

i felt really sorry the way they exited Smith......an embarrassing event

J

 :/ Can't disagree too much. Lackluster introduction of Capaldi.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

About bloody time! He only helped save the world from evil and fathered the computer age. It was shameful what my country did to him.

 No apology can make up for what they did to him.

TV's Frink said:

I know sticking a nail in an outlet is wrong because I know the consequences.  You think you know the consequences of homosexual sex, but it's nothing more than an opinion.

 The most interesting analogy I've heard on the topic.

Warbler said:

EyeShotFirst said:

Like I've said many times. Tolerance is a double-edged sword. If you want the Christian community to tolerate the gay community, you've got to tolerate that most Christians believe the act of gay sex to be wrong.

I agree with this sentiment, but I don't think A&E's problem with Roberson was that he said the homosexuality is sin, but that he compared it to bestiality.

 To be fair, he was not so much "comparing," as listing homosexuality as one of many sins (including heterosexual promiscuity). You've previously expressed acceptance of your church's teachings against homosexuality. There is debate about the true biblical position on the topic. A usual objection to equating bestiality and homosexuality is one of consent, but the bible addresses less legal concerns.

Anyway, Merry Christmas!

A liar and a thief! The barrels were ridiculous. And the love story. So much felt forced. I greatly look forward to what our Editors might do with all this material.

TV's Frink said:

EyeShotFirst said:

You don't see Matt and Trey, or Seth MacFarlane getting suspended for offending people. It's all a matter of money. A&E saw that as something that would lose them a lot of money.

 To be fair to A&E, profit is supposed to be their first motivation, being a business and all.

True. But I do think it is a knee-jerk reaction at this point when a comment concerns homosexuality. Like EyeShotFirst says, the audience knows what they're getting (and they apparently like it). And this thread has lost its sex appeal!

Well they could take A&E to task for giving him a platform to begin with, but they're not doing that. But yes, they're defending Robertson's right to express himself, even if they don't like the content against A&E's ham-handed attempts to silence him. As background, A&E previously cut out references to Jesus when prayers were said and an A&E representative was present at the controversy-inspiring interview (and said/did nothing). There are suggestions that A&E has always been uncomfortable with the notion that people would relate to the family and their conservative/religious views and is doing what it can to keep them in line and suppress those qualities.

I don't watch the show but agree with the defenses that Robertson should be able to be authentic. Compared to other TV shows, his expression was nothing to get worked up about.

What are you talking about? It's right there in blue and white.

I've seen various names pop up, couple more recognizable ones are Andrew Sullivan and Harvey Levin. Maybe they don't have management positions in the gay community (though Sullivan was a supporter of gay marriage before much of the gay community).

Sullivan says:

But look: I come back to what I said at the beginning. Robertson is a character in a reality show. He’s not a spokesman for A&E any more than some soul-sucking social x-ray from the Real Housewives series is a spokeswoman for Bravo. Is he being fired for being out of character? Nah. He’s being fired for staying in character – a character A&E have nurtured and promoted and benefited from. Turning around and demanding a Duck Dynasty star suddenly become the equivalent of a Rachel Maddow guest is preposterous and unfair.

Levin says:

I'm gay and I don't agree with Phil, but he has a right to his believes...it's not hate-based...it's religious...misdirected, but his right

TV's Frink said:

In the span of two days, New Mexico legalized gay marriage and Utah's anti-gay marriage law was ruled unconstitutional.  More and more people have come to accept gay marriage.  I don't think we are far away from this going national.

A federal judge in Utah also struck down part of the anti-polygamy law.

There is a difference though between judges declaring it must be so, and people accepting it. But I do think many people will accept it in due course. And as with the whole Duck Dynasty thing, those who do not will be shunned (though the Duck Dynasty dude has actually been getting a lot of support, even from some members of the 'gay community').

Bingowings said:

The Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey (2012).

I finally got around to seeing this after reading so much about it that wasn't good.

It is perfect. No.

It is a not bad adaptation of that part of the book. It changes things but it's a film adaptation so I'm fine with that. Also I can see how the book would need be at least two very long films to be true to the flow of the book so making it a trilogy isn't a problem for me either (upon reflecting on the flow of the film).

It shouldn't be seen in the cinema.

It is too long without an intermission. It would work better as a Game Of Thrones style mini-series. The future of these films and their cousins is to be seen box set style anyway it works better that way.

On the whole I enjoyed it, I would have cut the first Dwarf song (I never liked the songs in the book as a kid anyway) I would have trimmed the Goblin King sequence to make it less cartoonish on paper before adding more rubberpixelation to the mix.

The effects are a real step backwards though. The whole film looks kind of waxy especially the CGI and I saw in 2D Standard Definition with a conventional framerate. If I had seen this at the cinema I would understand the acid thrown at this.

It looked like a video game cutscene of an earlier generation than the other three related films.

The framing device (Frodo etc) doesn't work it makes it into a Lord of the Rings prequel instead of an adaptation of the earlier book.

This backfires because the peril in this film is implausibly mild.

People cling to objects that smack together and nobody gets crushed let alone die etc. Which works as an adaptation of the earlier book but not as a prequel to the later books.

The ponies should have been killed and not run away. This sounds like a minor quibble but as the film is meant to more child friendly displacing the consequences of danger to the animals we have bonded with makes more sense than another scene with dead animals which feels disconnected and gratuitous in terms of story.

Radagast's scenes are handled badly. I don't mind him being there as much as some but very little effort seems to be made to fit him in.

Compared to Lord of the Rings the tone doesn't match.

It would be better to start with young Bilbo and then maybe add old Bilbo at the end of the last film to nod towards the darker sequel story which would allow for a retuning of the universe into a more plausible darkness.

Indeed toning down the action to be more believable would sell the characters better.

4 Cones.

I agree. I just came from seeing Smaug. As with the first, I feel like the movies are too reminiscent of the style of PT. Faster, more intense, more CGI, rhyming like poetry, etc. In Smaug there was just too much stuff, a couple of big video game type sequences - I was practically convinced we were back on Mustafar inside the Lonely Mountain. Like Radagast, Beorn was handled badly - and not in accordance with the mystery and playfulness in the book. There were other departures and I rolled my eyes a couple of times where things went way overboard (as with one special effect/scene transition). Sounds like I hated it, but I didn't. It's just too much a mish-mash without true levity and playfulness the story needs.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:The couple sued and won. I expressed the view that the judge was right.

Mrebo said:

 But the idea that we have to force that baker to make the cake for gay couples is silly.

I'm confused.  

In a more ideal world, the discriminated against couple would just go to another bakery, not file a lawsuit that serves to force someone out of business or force them to provide for an event that he feels sinful. My views are informed by the fact that a majority of bakeries would still be available for the gay couple to get a cake from (which they did), the baker's insistence that he had no problem serving gay customers in general, and the sincerity that he just felt it was wrong for him to provide the wedding cake. It wasn't a dire situation as existed for blacks in our history.

I'm saying I think the judge is right on the law. The baker was being asked to make a cake. Making cakes is not against his religion, nor is even making them for gay people. The only thing he didn't want to do is to make a cake knowing it would be used for a specific event. So while his discomfort is understandable, it can be said to be rather removed from forcing him to violate his religion in some way. That is why it makes sense to say he cannot discriminate in making of cakes. In the previous paragraph, I'm just saying maybe he should be allowed to be as sensitive as he wants.

Mrebo said: I was then accused of being an effeminate communist.

you hang out with really extreme and crazy conservatives.

It's the internet. All partisans on the internet can get batty when challenged.