Mrebo

Black&White ESB Super 8? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GzX7vsIe5A

Posted a month and a half ago, for sale. No idea if it is as special as he claims but I figure you all would know.

Bingowings said:

In which case to avoid dragging the subjective moral values of some into the domestic arrangements of others wouldn't it be better to abolish civil marriage altogether and just have civil partnerships for anyone regardless of their sexual intensions, religious affiliation or lack of said?

That way a heterosexual couple of the Roman Catholic persuasion could have a church wedding and sign a civil document of union which is the same as the one a homosexual couple would sign if they announced their union a meeting of the Society Of Friends or at a ceremony of their own design etc.

That way the marriage would be a ceremonial rite of choice subject to whatever moral stance the organisation performing it may hold and civil union would a legal/economic contract with the state.

Should divorce be difficult to obtain, or just let the couple get a piece of paper notarized? There is a law of unintended consequences. People will change their behavior if marriage is a more casual union under the law.

You express theoretical support of bestial marriage and apparently do support polygamous and incestuous marriage. Granted you are not endorsing the underlying behaviors. I appreciate where you're coming from on a philosophical level and I disagree. This is the kind of argument that furthers fears that gay marriage is about tearing traditional society asunder, rather than an issue of justice and liberty. I think a society should have a strong moral compass and be able to express their morality in their governance. A constitution and laws can help ensure personal liberty, even if a minority feels offended by a moral view of the majority.

@Duracell, I did mean vegetable vegetables.

TV's Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV's Frink said:

It's dumb to assign a moral component to homosexuality.

You'll have to explain this to me.

 

My assumption - that's a rabbilope.  The implication being if we allow gays to marry, it will lead to people marrying dogs, antelopes marrying rabbits...and then this happens.

That argument is utter rubbish of course, but maybe you meant something else.

xD The image above features a rabbit and an antelope which were literally "married" in the technical definition of that word. My point is that a technical definition of the word doesn't capture what marriage is as a social institution.

I am not making an argument against gay marriage. In my most recent post, I do reference bestial and vegetal marriage as proposed absurdities and I do not think those ideas have any merit.

I am arguing about preserving the morality attendant with marriage as a social construct. I do think gay unions could be included in marriage on a moral basis. Your statement that "It's dumb to assign a moral component to homosexuality" misses the point. I guessed correctly that you were not calling homosexuality immoral.

Bingowings said:

It may change society but as to whether it would be a change for the worse is something that can only be subjectively assessed after the change has happened.

As a social mechanism you have to ask what is it for?

How does it function?

To be clear, I assume you're talking about stripping morality from civil marriage (not gay marriage per se). I think a trend toward a more amoral culture is inherently bad. To be able to finally conclude that is the case after the fact would be too little too late. If becoming a more amoral culture is just fine and dandy, then no harm no foul I guess, but I can't blame those who do care from trying to maintain the moral veneer on marriage.

It clearly isn't just about producing children otherwise we wouldn't allow people who are for some reason incapable of producing children to marry.

That's not exactly true. There are competing legal and moral concepts. If a purpose of marriage is to provide greater stability for children that regularly arise when a man and woman convene (and do not regularly arise when people of the same sex convene), it is not required that the law be very strictly tailored to that purpose. But due to the fact that gay couples do raise children, it is argued that gay unions should fall under the same umbrella to help ensure stability for their children. This doesn't disprove that a purpose of marriage is the raising of children, it adds a dimension that was not previously considered.

Further, notions of privacy would prevent the government from investigating one's child-bearing potential. At least in American law, for purposes of inheritance, the law recognizes the possibility of a fertile octogenarian (though it is generally seen as a fiction).

Still, my argument is that there also is/should be a moral component to the societal conception of marriage.

The law as it stands in the UK is that same sex civil unions have all the civil and legal benefits and responsibilities of a heterosexual civil marriage but can't call themselves married which seems daft as they are legally joined in the same way.

I agree. A federal court in California just ruled that it is daft to grant all the same rights but withhold only the title.

As for extended marriages to groups of people larger than two I have no problem with it ethically but it may be a legal minefield without well thought out legislation.

My question is what is the government's interest in sanctioning a multi-person marriage? I agree it would be a legal minefield, as adoption, custody, taxes, inheritance, etc are all oriented toward a union of two people  - but it is not simply because that is how marriage happened to be defined. There is a broad moral sense about the family unit which is supported by these various laws.

I can't see why the act of civil union can't be extended to people who don't have any desire to have sex with each other, like siblings.

That way if siblings living together in a shared home would have the same protection in law if one of them died as a husband and wife would.

I agree with this. I think civil unions are a good way of extending rights to those who - for whatever reason - do not want to marry but do have a person with whom they share expenses, responsibilities, etc.

Of course, civil unions would be legally distinct from marriage under this scheme. I do not support state-sanctioned incestuous marriages.

I also have no problem with childless siblings adopting children as a couple.

If Donny and Marie have a platonic relationship and simply want to raise a child together, I'm gonna think it's weird, but they have the freedom to do that. Do I want to go down that slippery slope toward sanctioning incestuous relationships? No.

When the gay marriage debate first erupted, there were all kinds of claims by opponents that it would lead to a slippery slope where society would allow polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and vegetal marriages. All of these claims were dismissed as hysterical. But it does seem to me that more and more people are shrugging their shoulders at the prospect of polygamy. I'm not making a value judgment that it is bad that people change their minds, I'm pointing out how a claim used to paint opponents as nuts ends up being acceptable and even possibly a feature of an updated definition of marriage.

You go a long way toward saying siblings should be given all the rights and privileges of marriage. Granted you only speak for your own view and might have held it for quite a long time. But if marriage becomes nothing more than an amoral contract, I see no bar to sanctioning incestuous marriages.

There seems to me an unhealthy obsession with sex in most societies and not enough focus on social structures.

Again, to be clear, I'm not arguing about the merits of including gay unions under the rubric of marriage. The family IS a social structure. I think every culture is fully entitled to express moral choices in the course of their governance.

TV's Frink said:

It's dumb to assign a moral component to homosexuality.

Bingowings said:

According to this cardinal changing the law to make civil marriage include the possibility of joining of two people of the same sex (the word marriage just means to join) would change the definition of the words mother and father and be like bringing back slavery under the insurance that there would be no actual slaves.

I think he must post on here. 

That he does currently or that he should in the future?

Speaking of the ambiguity of language, it's not dumb to attribute a sense of morality to the cultural institution of marriage. Though marriage may be succinctly defined as a joining, there appears to be a broad consensus against joining multiple persons. I think we are entitled as a society to make that kind of determination.

I don't think the moral component of marriage should be stripped from the civil institution. Alteration of marriage laws should be done based on the belief that the kind of joinings are moral. Because there is such vehement disagreement about what constitutes a moral joining, it may seem easier to reduce marriage to a more technical definition but I think this does harm society.

Many good points. And ultimately blame lies with he who chose which visuals to use. It's not that the battle droids (pictured below) do not have artistic merit or would not make for a cool sci-fi painting.

I am curious, how would you have envisioned the galactic senate?

"DIE, Jedi dogs. Oh... what did I say?"

thecolorsblend said:

Mrebo said:

I agree with a lot of what you say. In the OT, there was so much focus and effort put into each prop and model and to make them believable on screen.

You mean like the wolf man mask and the ice cream maker? I love the OT too dude but don't oversell it.

Yes. I mean every last detail. Every background element. Every button. /sarcasm

I understand how my statement could be taken that way, but in the context of agreeing with georgec's discussion of CGI, what I meant was that if the scene was dominated by a Star Destroyer chasing a small ship thousands of meters, which were really just models traveling not that far, a lot of care had to be taken to make it a believable and compelling scene to begin the movie. Adding a hundred more elements would not have been worth the effort.

And the camera really lingered on those models (and it worked brilliantly!) something we don't see or enjoy in the PT where there is enormous temptation to add a million elements diving and spinning, little droids attaching for no real reason. That was what I meant to suggest with examples in the parenthetical in my post following the sentence in question. The aesthetic focus of the PT seemed to be more about movement and action than creating powerful visuals to move the story forward.

I didn't mean the OT had better visuals because a guy was carrying an ice cream maker vs a whiffle ball scoop on little Ani's bedroom wall or wolfman vs Gragra.

I've been pondering this topic in relation to rewriting the prequels but thinking about McQuarrie's contributions does make it more vivid.

I agree with a lot of what you say. In the OT, there was so much focus and effort put into each prop and model and to make them believable on screen. They had to constantly work against the limitations they faced and used the simplicity to their advantage (eg opening of ROTS vs opening or closing battles of ANH).

Still, I can't help but feel that some important visuals were severely lacking in and of themselves. The senate chamber strikes me as one of the most boring executions of a galactic senate chamber possible. I liked the feel of Kamino (rainy scenes are awesome), but artistically never went more than puddle-deep, before letting us into another sterile environment. On Hoth, snow provided more intrigue. We knew there would a volcano planet but what we saw on screen didn't strike me as a very interesting rendition. I thought the Jedi Council chamber was weak. The visuals in the AOTC fireplace romance scene are boring - and it was not for a lack of trying nor intrusive CGI (only intrusive dialogue). It was quite a stylized scene in terms of lighting, costume and the room. But ultimately, even that simple and intimate setting didn't have any real character to my eye.

In thinking this day of Ralph McQuarrie's death about his profound effect on the original look of Star Wars, I wonder how much the lack of his kind of vision hurt the prequels.

Even where the prequels had - in the abstract - grand, fanciful, or elegant visuals they strike me as boring. I think of the senate chamber, Padme's wardrobe, the otherwise beautiful Italian scenes of Naboo, the Coruscant sports bar, various creatures and robots.

I think some elements were not taken advantage of but on the whole, the visuals strike me as boring. Agree/disagree?

I'm reading a cnet article about the youtube video concerning how Episode I could be improved. In the comments, I find this brainwashed gem:

I probably represent the minority opinion here, but I really like episodes 1-3. I grew up with episodes 4-6, but was never overly impressed with them. The new films add (1) way better visuals, (2) much richer worlds, (3) greater character depth, and oh, yeah, (4) they completely changes the focal point of the story.

This guy loses me at, literally, an exponential rate. But he continues:

Watching 4-6, you get the feeling that the story is all about Luke...a young irritating kid who accidentally restores balance to the universe by whining so long enough that his father goes on a rampage and kills the closest person to him (the emperor).

*sigh*™

But 1-3 shows us that the story was never about Luke...it's always been about Anakin. This shift opens up a much deeper storyline. It elevates the story from cheesy space fantasy to sci-fi Greek tragedy. Anakin is Star Wars, not Luke.

*twitch*

Is Jar-Jar annoying? Not any more annoying than Ewoks, Jawas, or those ugly puppet things that hung around Jabba. I think he fits in with the SW universe quite well.

Obi-Wan Kenobi says: Well, then you are lost!

This is a pity :(

Akwat, then what do we say about the different views of Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons? To put it roughly, Catholics believe priests are a necessary conduit to God, that saints may be prayed to, that relics and idols have some importance, etc. That isn't reconcilable with the protestant view of God.

There is no denying the major conceptual differences between the monotheistic religions but despite the divergences, they do have a common history. At what point do Orthodox and Reformed Jews believe in different gods? At what point to Catholics and evangelicals? Sunnis and Shi'ites?

XyZ said:

... A pagan one. A sacrilege one, maybe. It happens a lot (unfortunately).

As long as hate and ignorance (including politics) still remain in the heart of men, their beliefs mostly distorted will blind them rather than enlight them and will stay as they are *ie* a cultural background, and their faith diluted in never ending discussions.

= I agree with you 100%. But that's not the obvious Ric Olie will observe every day.

 

 

True.

XyZ said:

Mrebo said:

A Muslim does not think a Christian believes in a different god...

Two Muslims do not think forcedly the same... As for two Christians.

 

M' enfin.

Which other god might a Muslim think a Christian believe in if the Muslim doesn't believe there is another god?

I'll be in DC this coming week. I'm curious as to how one gets such access? Last time I stood behind the glass in the LOC fantasizing about where SW might be hidden :p

georgec said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

That depends on which book you believe.

Islam talks about all of the previous prophets including Jesus, whom it says was not actually the Son of God. Whereas Christianity has the Trinity concept, Islam addresses this and means to restore the emphasis of divinity on God himself.

If someone is a Christian then of course he/she will not agree with this. But to a Muslim or even to a non-believing observer who might read the texts but not form opinions on what is true and not true, the Islamic God is the Christian God.

Of course it does. If you hold to the Qu'ran and the Hadith, you will deny Trinitarianism. If you hold to the New Testament--and your exegetical approach is roughly consistent with that of historic orthodox Christianity--then you will hold to Trinitarianism. That's precisely the point that I was making. For anyone, Muslim or otherwise, to claim that the Islamic God is the Christian God, is both arrogant and fallacious. Religious communities must be allowed to define their own beliefs. Muslims would be highly offended if Christians went around claiming that Allah is a Trinity, so it is similarly out of bounds for Muslims (or anyone else, for that matter) to claim that the Christian conception of Yahweh/Jehovah is not Trinitarian.

By saying that the Quran's presentation of the "One God" being the same for the three monotheistic religions is arrogant and fallacious, aren't you therefore essentially debunking, denying, and defining the beliefs of Islam? Your response seems defensive...

I thought your observation that each respective religion's deity is the same being was apt. All those religions believe there is one deity but have different views about the nature of that deity and our interaction with 'him.' Additionally, good point about the shared history of these religions.

Catholics and Protestants have varying notions about God and our relationship with him, but that doesn't mean they worship different gods, one side just thinks (for the most part) the other is 'doing it wrong.'

It is only by ignoring the shared history of the 3 monotheistic religions and viewing each concept as fiction that one can say they worship different gods. Even if one personally thinks any deity is a fiction, it is arrogant and fallacious to attribute that view to those who believe (which is what Akwat essentially does).

A Muslim does not think a Christian believes in a different god - because there is no different god! And to say that the Christian or Muslim or Jew does not believe in any god (because his conception is fallacious from the point of view of the others) is arrogant and wrong. The only conclusion is that if there is a God, they believe in the same one differently.

captainsolo said:

I find this kinda depressing actually. Sure it sounds nice, but displays will get better and better and finally kill of theatrical distribution.

I don't think there is any reason to worry about that. Right now we can watch newly released movies off the internet if we want. That hasn't killed theatrical distribution. The trend of technology should force theaters to make the movie-going experience more meaningful. But it will always have the advantage of being a huge screen and an experience shared by a roomful of strange people :p

Most people aren't going to know or care about scope films. When I really really want to enjoy something in scope, I'll go out and buy a projector and fit an anamorphic lens. For cheaper than this thing.

Had to wiki "scope films." Sounds like they're already done for. Regardless of format, won't people care about films that were good? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here...

When was the last time you even saw a great scope movie? Everything is shot in such a flat style nowadays that even scope has become lifeless. (Never thought I'd be saying that.)

I agree about the lifelessness, but isn't that a different topic?

Your concerns remind me of camera enthusiasts who worry about the innovations being made for point-and-shoots which feature very long zooms and focus that is completely adjustable in post-processing. They worry that these and other emerging features will at least crowd out the (d)slr market, if not make it obsolete. Technology can't be stopped, but I don't think any point-and-shoot or big wide screen (or CGI) is going to hurt substantive creations unless creators let it happen by failing to create worthwhile works.

It is too intrusive/distracting and what Ripplin said.

Awesome. I'm envious. I suspect you're waiting to clear up the "off the record" parts. Sounds like good news!

Do you find Kirk Cameron's perspective hateful?

TV's Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV's Frink said:

negative1 said:

so what's the point of dragging out one line, just to say something in a long run on-sentence, when the browser margin border just wraps the text around anyways? besides this kind of a line break looks a lot worse to me because then i'm not in control of where the sentence breaks? see, i can post in long sentences too, which i have no idea when the line ends.oh joy!?

This makes zero sense.

You mean -1 sense? XDD

I was tempted to make that joke but decided I was better than that. ;-)

Heh. I set you up for the good jokes, you set me up for the bad ones ;)

TV's Frink said:

negative1 said:

so what's the point of dragging out one line, just to say something in a long run on-sentence, when the browser margin border just wraps the text around anyways? besides this kind of a line break looks a lot worse to me because then i'm not in control of where the sentence breaks? see, i can post in long sentences too, which i have no idea when the line ends.oh joy!?

This makes zero sense.

You mean -1 sense? XDD

Do you watch The Big Bang Theory and if so feel that you have any extra appreciation of some jokes?

My friend was a math major. I remembered him saying something about Calculus IV. He might as well as told me he saw bigfoot. Prompted by these memories, I just watched part of a video of a Calc IV class. At first I thought: maybe I could understand it with sufficient effort. After a couple minutes of brain ache I concluded they were just trying to make something (still have no idea what) unnecessarily complicated. That was the problem I had with advanced math - it had no apparent relevance. Like running on a treadmill, it just gets boring and painful. I can accept that Calc IV - like bigfoot - exists and that somebody has seen it in real life (perhaps that video was a spoof and I have a sneaking suspicion it was...) but it still seems kinda crazy.