logo Sign In

Mrebo

User Group
Members
Join date
20-Mar-2011
Last activity
13-Feb-2025
Posts
3,400

Post History

Post
#652225
Topic
Personal Quest to Learn Over 20 Languages
Time

I also admire your ambition and determination. It's great that you forge ahead anyway possible. Best way to accomplish anything. I keep falling off the wagon for Russian. When I've worked with people from Mexico and South America, I get passionate about learning their languages but then it's hard to keep with it. And I continue to regret not advancing and perfecting French. Maybe starting with bigger goals is a wise thing. And I like that I had to google several of those languages.

Post
#652184
Topic
Current Events. No debates!
Time

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

But the word "murder" came from the journalist, and the juror was simply repeating that exact phrase, quite clearly considering its merit, but not endorsing it.

I am not as certain as you seem to be that she was just simply repeating the words.   I think she was agreeing with them, to some extent.   That is backed up by the fact that right after saying the words, she said "but you can't get away from God".  

But if that was what she truly believed, I don't she why she would have hesitated as she did and even appear to start to object ("that -"). Based on how she repeated the words and her body language, I take her words "but you can't get away from God" as her response to those who say he "got away with murder." I mean...she was responding to a question about those who say that.

It is literally putting words in her mouth to attribute the "murder" claim to her. Again, she appears to be saying Zimmerman could have avoided the situation and that he has moral culpability for that. But "murder" is something different than that (which she recognizes). Based on the totality of her statements, the nature of the question, and how she responded to it, I think it is wrong to insist she believes it.

Post
#652125
Topic
Current Events. No debates!
Time

Mrebo said:

As she said, she didn't believe the intention was there.

true, but she said "George Zimmerman got away with murder.

Aha, but that was the point of the article...she was repeating those words of the "journalist" as if thinking them over (watch videos!), but based on her own words following that, it does not seem she accepted that notion. She believes Zimmerman is morally culpable for taking a life. But she also accepted Zimmerman didn't act with a murderous intent.

Mrebo said:

The juror believes Zimmerman is morally culpable for Trayvon's death (and even Zimmerman should recognize that to some extent).

that is exactly what I said " She does seem to believe that morally George Zimmerman got away with murder"

But the word "murder" came from the journalist, and the juror was simply repeating that exact phrase, quite clearly considering its merit, but not endorsing it.

Which brings us back to Do:

Warbler said:

"Murder" can't be an abstraction.

an abstraction?  please explain?

I mean it has an actual legal definition. And it lines up really really well with our moral definition. Yet taking a life should have moral weight even where clearly not murder. I agree with the juror that Trayvon's death was needless, that Zimmerman could have avoided the whole situation, but nothing in that makes Zimmerman a murderer. And the juror did not claim Zimmerman got away with murder. That was the journalist. The whole point of the article was that the media was distorting the words of a non-media savvy person, presenting a repetition of a question as if they were her own words.

Post
#652089
Topic
Current Events. No debates!
Time

Warbler said:

btw, I failed to see any photo  of the police chief on that page.

You'd have to watch the video.

 

Warbler said:

btw, when I on that page looking at the story of the cop,  I saw this:

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/27/juror-b29-was-framed-sort-of/

I then watched the ABC interview.   She does seem to believe that morally George Zimmerman got away with murder, but that the law would not allow her to convict him. 

"Murder" can't be an abstraction. As she said, she didn't believe the intention was there. The only reason the law got in the way was the fact that it rightly provides for self defense and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Even Trayvon's friend has said in an interview she thinks Trayvon threw the first punch (not that that makes it truth obviously). The juror believes Zimmerman is morally culpable for Trayvon's death (and even Zimmerman should recognize that to some extent).

One thing she said really bothered me, she is is hurting as much as Trayvon's mother. 

That stuck out for me too. I think overall, she is being too media hungry, saying things that can bring more pain than solace. It's too much about how she is sympathetic, pained, and needing to be understood. I respect that as a juror she followed the law despite what her heart may have told her about Zimmerman's moral culpability.

Here is case with certain similarities to the Zimmerman case that didn't grab the media's attention. As for Obama saying he could have been Trayvon, I am reminded of so many people Obama actually was whom his Justice Department aggressively prosecutes. But that's political, so any response might have to migrate to that thread.

Post
#652016
Topic
Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD**
Time

Bingowings said:

I refuse to be optimistic.

After the PT and Prometheus I don't want to invest time anticipating something that has every chance of being a disappointment.

I concur. I want to go in with a scowl, arms crossed, and then the movie win me over. I can't help but feel some budding optimism . . . but I don't want to be hurt that way again ;|

Post
#651773
Topic
Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD**
Time

Noooooooooooooo!

Only rumors, but that's all we've got for now. I honestly don't know much more about Gosling than he's God's gift to womankind or something but the movie star factor turns me off. Efron actually is a decent actor from what I've seen (which was not his Glee precursor) but if anyone's eyebrows could use digital tampering . . .

Post
#651412
Topic
The Future Legacy of Star Wars Films
Time

Heilemann said:

That article lacks any kind of historical insight or dramaturgical understanding. Storytelling *is* 'formulaic', and always has been.

You have a point. And I'm skeptical of the 'here are two examples from movie X so obv the entire movie followed a strict formula.' Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I mean, we'd expect a couple of similarities with any given story-telling model.

But I am still concerned about a perfectly good script being handed up to the executives who fancy themselves experts because they studied a certain easy-to-digest formula (like the one at the link) and decide to impose that model to constrain the story within that single orthodoxy in order to 'make it better.'

Whether Moliere, Shakespeare, Spielberg, or Abrams...there are obvious good ways of telling a story that will be followed. But I think there is a danger (perhaps proven by recent movies) of adhering to certain models too closely.

Do you think that is a problem with contemporary cinema or are movies as good/bad as they've always been? I tend to agree with DuracellEnergizer - even beyond movies, I don't know if there is as much opportunity for people to breach existing fields.

Post
#651005
Topic
The Future Legacy of Star Wars Films
Time

Are most big movies now following this formula? I am concerned that Star Wars 7 - however well-written, acted, directed - will be bottled up in such a manner and feel uninspired, however "really good" it may be. Some of Disney's and other companies' recent efforts heighten this concern.

Would or could a new Star Wars movie change cinema the way it is said to have done in '77? Or is cinema no longer susceptible to such alterations of course?

I'm not wanting a crazy avant-garde Star Wars, but could it show enough heart to stand out as something more than 'another (really good) Star Wars movie'?

Post
#650272
Topic
Current Events. No debates!
Time

Federal government demands disaster plans for a magician's rabbit (including surprise inspections of his home).

Related:

Congress is dominated by intellectual lightweights who are chiefly consumed by electioneering and largely irrelevant in a body where a handful of members and many more staff do the actual work of legislating. And the business of the institution barely gets done because of a pernicious convergence of big money and consuming partisanship.

Lastly (though even less a currents event story): for lack of a better summary it concerns the value of knowledge.