Mrebo

Awwww :)

So...how about some of us try to be extras in the new films?

I intend to see the 2080s.

King's Quest IV!

I used the manuals that came with the computer mostly. Started making a little game with a city constructed of ASCII characters and one could enter the various buildings. The nightclub had a flashing sign. Once you enter, a song played that I composed. All very exciting xD One of the reasons I wouldn't want to get rid of the computer. At the library I think I found a book on BASIC to help me. In college I did a course on Visual BASIC, glad to see it was mostly the same idea.

The 90s had their own fun though, like blowing into game cartridges to make them work. And AOL dialup.

So I'm on this big sci-fi kick all of a sudden. Introduced to Firefly series, read Ender's game and now finishing up this "Foundation" novel by some guy named Asimov who I had vaguely heard of before. I was struck by similarities in "Foundation" with Star Wars. From big things like a galactic empire of billions of worlds existing for thousands of years to little things like the important world of Korellia. Story-wise they are quite different, of course, but I see how ideas can be borrowed or used as a guide.

Hahah, women really do have all kinds of power.

May the Force be with you.

I remember being on my front porch opening a birthday present (granted this was well after '83 but the toys must have been in the stores for quite awhile after) and opening up the Max Rebo band. It was exciting to see Star Wars on network TV, which was my only Star Wars viewing during the 80s. I was young/uninformed enough not to even know which episode I was watching when it came on. I played with my not-yet vintage toys. Klaatu still has some playdoh stuck in his face I think.

Got a computer around the very end of the 80s. A Tandy 1000 SL. Mostly played King's Quest. I fooled around with BASIC programming. It beat the old Commodore I used at school during recess to play Oregon Trail. Still have the computer at my mother's, I'm always impressing upon her how important it is to preserve for the sake of humanity. I just remember really wanting a computer and begging for one. And then it was so annoying to have to switch out the floppy disks all the time to proceed in a game, so I begged to get more RAM (less switching) and a 3.5" drive (fewer disks needing switching).

Some of the older people here will have better memories. Short shorts with stripes on the side seemed to have been a prominent feature of that era.

Alexrd said:

Bingowings said:

I liked the Vong.

The idea of living beings that are not connected to the Force is ignoring the most basic "rules" of Star Wars. The idea of an enemy coming from another galaxy opens a whole can of worms and is too far-fetched for me to accept. So is living spaceships and the like.

That's why I don't like most of the EU and worry about Lucas absence. Most of EU authors appear to not understand Star Wars. It's like a bunch of wild fan ideas materialized. Fortunately Lucas spent some time teaching people like Filoni, Gilroy and the like how Star Wars works and how to do it right.

I agree wholeheartedly with all of this.

timdiggerm said:

Mrebo said:

Alexrd said:

timdiggerm said:

Alexrd said:

Please, leave this guy as far from the franchise as possible.

Why?

Because of what he wrote, and because I think he has yet to prove himself to be a good director.

I agree, Alexrd. I abhor the Yuuzhan Vong storyline. They do not belong in the Star Wars universe. I only just watched Firefly as a personal marathon the last couple days. It was enjoyable. It's no wonder he likes the Yuuzhan Vong since he has a very similar people in Firefly.

Ah yes, who can forget the complicated religion, caste structure, and bio-tech weaponry of the Revers.

Wait...

-_-

Physically similar, at least. Anyways, I don't know that Disney would want horrible self-mutilation (aside from former Mouseketeers). And how about a movie about Star Wars...and not complicated religion, caste structure, and bio-tech weaponry.

Can't Bob Costas play Luke? Saw him recently on TV and thought that's how Luke should look nowadays...granted his speech is all off and he's not an actor...

Alexrd said:

timdiggerm said:

Alexrd said:

Please, leave this guy as far from the franchise as possible.

Why?

Because of what he wrote, and because I think he has yet to prove himself to be a good director.

I agree, Alexrd. I abhor the Yuuzhan Vong storyline. They do not belong in the Star Wars universe. I only just watched Firefly as a personal marathon the last couple days. It was enjoyable. It's no wonder he likes the Yuuzhan Vong since he has a very similar people in Firefly.

But as for canon (ie Thrawn), they say it will instead be an original story.

Though it is now inevitable that we get Muppet Star Wars.

In seriousness, I don't think another petition is warranted. What matters is that the demand is still relevant, even if the target has changed.

adywan said:

At first i was quite excited that there now may be a chance we could see a restored version of the OUT, but then realised that Disney owning the rights to the Star Wars franchise will probably spell the end of anything fan created as their lawyers will be ready to pounce

Very very good point. Lucas always had the virtue of being reasonable about copyright. Disney ownership is not good for us here.

I really am gobsmacked. So much so that I'm using the word gobsmacked. This is some of the craziest news.

I mean, maybe I should be excited? Disney has the potential to do what Lucas has proven incapable of...

Really, we should have bought Disney stock yesterday.

I hate that Disney continues to buy up every shred of childhood.

In part, I think it signals the atrophy of new content creation.

There's just perpetual copyright ownership by a single corporation of all popular content from the last 80 years.

If ever a Vader "Noooooo" were appropriate it would be here.

I just hate that Disney is owning everything.

I was sitting on the couch with my niece who was holding a kitten. I suddenly noticed that she was holding a big spider between two fingers trying to place it on the cat's head. I jumped several feet away imploring her to stop, stop, stop...*shudders* I did put it outside though.

Not spider related: I feel bad for this guy.

Hope you don't lose power.

walkingdork said:

Mrebo said:

If we are to talk of philosophical consistency, what of pro-choice people who believe foremost in the autonomy of the woman and her domain over her own body but think abortion should generally prohibited at later gestational stages?

The process of late term abortion is pretty morbid. I'm in favor of laws against it as a compromise with pro-lifers and an incentive for people to get their abortions before the fetus is fully formed.

I'm sure it's not compromise for the sake of compromise. The incentive part makes sense as policy, though I don't know how many women it would hurry along in their decision. I think it's pretty clear that you just recognize the terribleness of the act and that unless it is truly necessary to save the woman's life or something at that late stage, it's not necessary.

Should women be able to choose to have a late term abortion? Probably, but I am seriously against it since at that point the brain is the same as it will be the day it is born.

It's a good illustration how a moral philosophy - autonomy of the woman in this case - can give way to reality without voiding its validity. It's disturbing to kill a fetus with a near-complete brain, formed fingers and toes, a beating heart. It can seem more palatable to cut the development short at an earlier stage. That it is more gruesome for us to consider means we can 'control a woman's body'? I think we all know it's more complicated. I think it's unfortunate so many reject the pro-life side out of fear that all abortion will become illegal.

darth_ender said:

Or the inconsistency of those who favor letting a child who was born alive in a failed abortion to simply die?

My grandpa always said you can fix anything with a hammer...

My grandfather also reportedly held that view.

If we are to talk of philosophical consistency, what of pro-choice people who believe foremost in the autonomy of the woman and her domain over her own body but think abortion should generally prohibited at later gestational stages?

I think ender needs an intervention.

CP3S said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with it, until you try to force that unprincipled morality on the rest of the population. I rest easy knowing there are people who care for and love their unborn children. But I also rest easy knowing that someone has a right not to have to allow their body to go through the changes and trauma of pregnancy for the sake of a future child they didn't intent to conceive, especially when they lack the competency, ability, or desire to rise said child.

If everyone would just mind their own business on matters like this, life would be so much more enjoyable.

I still think it's hard to reduce it to minding one's own business when there is that other life at stake.

I also think the assumption that so many abortions are for the best is flawed. That a baby would be undesired doesn't justify ending its life. I was born to a woman (my mother, coincidentally) who a rational observer might have declared unprepared to raise a child due to the situation at the time. It was certainly far from ideal for her. Her sister (my aunt, surprisingly), impressed upon her how undesirable it would be for her to have a baby. Fortunately, my aunt's pleas fell on deaf ears. The glib lesson some will draw is: well good for your mother, she had the choice and she made it for herself. The lesson I see (and she certainly sees) is that tough circumstances and questions about ability don't justify ending the baby-to-be's life. In a case of rape, however, many see a difference, not because the situation is merely undesirable or unintended, but because it was actually forced upon the woman.

I actually really dislike pro-choice people who don't seem willing to admit that it is a human life, or would rather not admit or acknowledge it, despite the reality that medicine and science tells us it is. That whole line of thinking rubs me the wrong way. I really do think a lot of ignorance surrounds this issue, perhaps on both sides, but more pertinent to the pro-choice side. What you hold inside you is a future person, and very much its own entity with 100% unique DNA, snuffing that out should not be something taken lightly.

It is an uncomfortable fact. The way I view my position is that my belief is anchored in recognizing the life and worth of the baby-to-be. That's why I identify as pro-life. From there, I would confront the difficult question of what could justify cutting that life short. Again, you're right from a moral standpoint that cutting a life short based on how it was created isn't morally coherent. Also, Plan B poses a major challenge to those trying to be true to a moral principle. Somehow it seems less bad if it's really early or we don't know.

Ultimately, I don't know that anything truly justifies ending the fetus's life. But there is a point where it is hard to justify making sure the woman carries it to term. Rape is one of those situations. When her life is on the line is another. I think many pro-choice people could see that ending the fetus's life isn't "justified" even in that latter case, but is acceptable or necessary. I think it is more along the lines of those killed as "collateral damage." Deaths of the innocent can't really be justified.

When it comes to assertions that it's difficult and undesirable, I don't see how those interests, however valid, can trump the value of the life. And who am I to say? A member of society who believes human life deserves legal protection. Again, it comes back to that life.

The cop-out, but the reality, is that laws do not need to be entirely consistent with a moral principle, even when they're animated by one.

In the US, polls show an overwhelming majority would outlaw abortion after the first trimester (as is the case in France). That is also the direction I want to go in. Right now an extremist view prevails that abortion shouldn't be a big deal (unless you want it to be) and I don't see how it doesn't effect society's conception of abortion.

ender is right that it's a false dichotomy to say it's murder or nothing. And I also thought he argued his point effectively (and non-boringly).

Just to ensure the record is straight, I never said, "murder or nothing" or anything remotely close to it.

I know.

TV's Frink said:

The use of the word "convenience" regarding abortion, in cases of rape or health of the mother, is very disturbing to me.

There is a good point in that, from the pro-life perspective, to try to undermine C3PS's argument. I think many would say abortion is never convenient, but those abortions even less so. There is a qualitative difference, even if difficult to lay out in a morally coherent way. To defend the CP3S's argument, the term was meant as a philosophical critique of pro-lifers conception of the convenience of permitting the moral choice, not the act itself.

CP3S, if your point is a philosophical one about the inconsistency of calling it murder but allowing exceptions, you're right. But if there's one thing I've learned, Warbler doesn't care about philosophical distinctions. No offense, Warbler, I think you'd agree the philosophical side of things doesn't hold much relevance to your thinking. You care what happens in practice.

From the philosophical standpoint, I think a lot of what you say is accurate and there are probably many people who hold that sort of incoherent view and are in essence drawing a different line of convenience. Setting aside the position's loss of principled morality, there is still a question whether there is anything wrong with drawing a different line of convenience.

You're also right most of us see a difference between killing an infant and killing a fetus. Pregnancy is unique. I don't think there are easy answers. That does lead some to throw their hands up and say it is best left to the woman.

What prevents many from giving up is the continued belief that the fetus is a human life (and factually, it is). I think you give a good review of the thinking of both sides, but the compassion of the pro-choice side runs in a single direction, where certain conveniences can only be justified by ignoring that the fetus has any moral value. Otherwise it's like Biden's statement: "Life begins at conception...and I just refuse to impose that on others."

ender is right that it's a false dichotomy to say it's murder or nothing. And I also thought he argued his point effectively (and non-boringly).