Sign In

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
20-Sep-2006
Last activity
12-Dec-2018
Posts
3737
Web Site
http://www.hardbat.com/puggo

Post History

Post
#1241892
Topic
Doctor Who
Time

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

It is clear this is marketed to feminists. ugh.

I didn’t get that out of it.

I am not sure how you could miss it.

The vast majority of it was showing scenes from the show, and some of the partners. Yeah there’s a cute little play on words at the end, but I didn’t think it was heavy-handed about it.

the music? The little bit where it looked like she will have to deal with the “typical male pig”?

You’re right, I missed where it made reference to a “typical male pig”. Where is that?

Post
#1241817
Topic
Doctor Who
Time

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

It is clear this is marketed to feminists. ugh.

I didn’t get that out of it.

I am not sure how you could miss it.

The vast majority of it was showing scenes from the show, and some of the partners. Yeah there’s a cute little play on words at the end, but I didn’t think it was heavy-handed about it.

Post
#1241766
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I hate the celibacy vow, but I don’t think that’s why there is so much abuse. My assumption is that pedophiles become priests because they know that they will not only have access to children, but also that the Church will protect and enable them in their crimes. They would have access to children in schools, daycares, summer camps, or sports teams, but accusations typically are and have been taken very seriously in those settings. You still see tragic cases of abuse in schools and sports, but not thousands of students abused by thousands of teachers in single cities where the districts ensured that the teachers be allowed to continue their abuse. The protection is what draws them, I think.

Alternatively, I’ve often wondered if some people notice in themselves urgings that they wish to suppress (e.g., attraction to kids, attraction to same sex), and are therefore attracted to being a part of an institution that provides a supportive infrastructure for a celibate life. I once knew someone who was considering joining a monastery partly for this reason. Ironic if they were to then find themselves in an environment that supported acting on said urges.

Post
#1241667
Topic
Religion
Time

I’m not sure what to think of the vow of celibacy thing. Being rather socially clumsy, it wasn’t uncommon for me to go two or three years without so much as a date (and this was not by choice). But never once did that cause me to have the slightest notion of taking advantage of a kid. I’m not sure that people take advantage of kids because they are sex-starved… I think they just are attracted to kids. Or does it depend on the person?

Post
#1240353
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Yes, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if republicans strengthen their control. I think overall they are pretty happy that Trump has done a lot of what he says he would do, has waved the flag and ridiculed the evil football players, and they don’t give a damn about all this abstract Russia stuff. Plus he kicked out all those bad immigrants that are taken are jobs.

Post
#1240146
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

I’m no fan of religion (well, except the FSM). However, is the abuse rate any higher in the catholic church than in other religions? Or even when compared to large secular organizations? I haven’t seen any such statistics, and I wonder if it is just an unfortunate aspect of humanity in general.

It’s not just that, it’s the institutional coverups. If any secular organization, or even a smaller religious institution, did that, then they’d be brought down immediately after it came to light.

I agree it’s horrendous. But again, are there statistics that the amount of coverup is higher? We sometimes hear of agencies, schools, companies, etc, just transferring people. My university has covered up abuse cases, smeared victims, etc to cover their ass. Of course it’s bad, and especially noticeable coming from a group claiming such a high level of righteousness. But is it all that unique?

I am not claiming it isnt, I’m just actually curious.

Post
#1239995
Topic
Religion
Time

I’m no fan of religion (well, except the FSM). However, is the abuse rate any higher in the catholic church than in other religions? Or even when compared to large secular organizations? I haven’t seen any such statistics, and I wonder if it is just an unfortunate aspect of humanity in general.

Post
#1239391
Topic
A general <strong>Sports</strong> thread: <em>news, results, funny, inspiring, weird, controversies, gestures etc...</em>
Time

I watched the match and thought that:

  • the umpiring was probably a wee bit heavy-handed, but
  • Serena’s behavior was outrageous and unacceptable, even given that.

If Serena were to watch the video of her outburst, and after some self-reflection STILL think that her behavior was acceptable, much less warranted (in the press conference she basically said she was fighting for women’s rights), and doesn’t realize that she should obviously apologize, then she isn’t someone I’d want to be around. Her behavior was at its worst BEFORE the game penalty, and showed total disregard for her worthy and gracious opponent. In my opinion she behaved like a self-centered rude bully. I felt the same about McEnroe when he was playing.

Post
#1238949
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler, you honestly believe that they are “protesting the anthem”? You honestly believe that it is the ANTHEM that they are mad at??? Kapernick and others have made it clear from the start that they are protesting police brutality. And yet you (and others) persist in insisting that they are protesting the anthem. It’s amazing.

I know that now you’re going to say that the anthem isn’t the place to protest. That is a different argument. So just to be clear, one more time, on topic, Warbler, do you actually believe that they are “protesting the anthem”?

You can say they are not protesting the Anthem, that they are protesting police brutality. I say they are protesting police brutality via protesting the Anthem. Whatever you want to call it, I find it disrespectful.

Sorry, no, that’s not how words work. Strange, with how often you’ve brought up dictionary definitions, I’d have figured you’re the type of person to care about that sort of thing.

Fine, they are disrespecting the Anthem to protest police brutality.

Ok, that’s a more reasoned stance.

Post
#1238825
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler, you honestly believe that they are “protesting the anthem”? You honestly believe that it is the ANTHEM that they are mad at??? Kapernick and others have made it clear from the start that they are protesting police brutality. And yet you (and others) persist in insisting that they are protesting the anthem. It’s amazing.

I know that now you’re going to say that the anthem isn’t the place to protest. That is a different argument. So just to be clear, one more time, on topic, Warbler, do you actually believe that they are “protesting the anthem”?

Post
#1238505
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

I also wonder if this alleged “adult in the room” is simply trying to appease anti-Trump republicans so that they are still comfortable voting republican, on the basis that republicans are saving the day in the white house so don’t worry about Trump. The timing would make it seem that way. Until some republican comes out and make their opposition to Trump clear, as McCain did, it’s hard for me to see it as anything but republican self-aggrandizement without actual substance.

Interesting that both the right and left sides of the media are looking a bit askance at this statement.

Post
#1238382
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

NeverarGreat said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Even for the Trumpster fire, this is big.

I actually find this a bit disturbing. Trump won the election, and with the help of these people. Seems like they want their cake and eat it too. Also, it’s the Trump supporters always claiming that there is some sort of Democrat-led “deep state”, when actually if this article is to be believed, there really IS a deep state and it is entirely Republican. If they were truly patriots, they would come out in the open and say what’s right, not quietly benefit from something they know is sick.

Trump just called it “gutless”. He’s right.

Post
#1237994
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Atheism is definitely NOT a religion, in my opinion. People even say that science is a religion, but that is even less true. Religion generally includes one or more articles of faith, and that is one thing that science has no place for. In science nothing is sacred, and anything “proven” today can be disproven tomorrow. Science strives to offer the best explanation given the limits of current measurement tools and analytical techniques. Thus its conclusions can change as tools and techniques improve. It is ironic that a highly educated scientist is less certain about his knowledge than is an uneducated but devout religious person. That is the nature of faith, and what in my mind fundamentally distinguishes atheism, agnosticism, and science from religion.

Post
#1237940
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Collipso said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Could be quackery, but there is this.

That article brings up an important point… just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean that they necessarily believe there isn’t a spiritual or higher realm, or even a creator.

i think you’re referring to an ‘agnostic’ someone and not an ‘atheist’?

Right - I think that most people would categorize me as “agnostic”. However, I actually think that atheism is a more accurate label. The reason is that while I believe that there might be a creator, and I admit that one of the existing religions may be correct, I think that by far the greatest likelihood is that there isn’t a “creator” in any sense that we can conjure. More likely, the realm in which we exist is far more complex, and even the notion of a “creator” is laughably primitive, and that we aren’t even asking the right questions (nor are we capable). I also think that our scientific method would be considered quaint by a more intelligent being, although I think that higher forms of “science” are far more likely to reveal answers than any spiritual method. In other words, I don’t KNOW if there is or isn’t a God, but I very much suspect that there isn’t.

I’ll also add my belief that science must necessarily always leave the door open a crack by admitting there is a remote possibility for things like prayer, God, etc., to be true, but it doesn’t follow that scientists are therefore agnostics by definition.

Post
#1237937
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

suspiciouscoffee said:

Could be quackery, but there is this.

That article brings up an important point… just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean that they necessarily believe there isn’t a spiritual or higher realm, or even a creator. I consider myself an atheist, but I am quick to clarify that I haven’t a clue what is beyond our ability to sense or reason, and there absolutely could be a creator. I’m quite convinced that there are things beyond our ability to comprehend, and that there is a lot more to the “universe” than we are capable of knowing.

I even am quick to admit that Christianity (or Islam, or Buddhism, etc.) might be right. It might be possible to communicate with the creator through some sort of spiritual method, such as prayer. I might even catch myself saying a little prayer in a particularly stressful moment, as an instinctive product of my childhood upbringing.

However, I think that the greatest likelihood is that the existing religions are complete nonsense, and that the ancient texts so revered by them are utter fairy tales. I also believe that prayer is pointless, and that a presidential call to prayer is primitive. So, being completely un-persuaded by any theism, I would consider myself atheist. Maybe it will turn out that I’m wrong and I will burn in hell as a result. I think that the likelihood of that is vanishingly small. But it is a possibility.

Post
#1237467
Topic
Musical Obsessions
Time

Jazz has almost 100 years of incredible recordings of every imaginable flavor. You can spend a lifetime of exploring - it’s like a giant project with all these artists trying different things.

My favorites tend towards the edgy post-bop stuff. John Coltrane, Art Blakey, Freddie Hubbard, Sonny Rollins, etc. But I also love big bands - Duke Ellington, Count Basie, etc. And really early stuff - Louis Armstrong, George Lewis, even the old King Oliver recordings. Cool stuff - Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck, Chet Baker, Bill Evans. Love some of the avant garde - Art Ensemble of Chicago, George Adams and Don Pullen, Pharoah Sanders. And fusion - Weather Report, Return to Forever. Bebop and swing - Charlie Parker, Lester Young, Clifford Brown/Max Roach, Art Tatum, Oscar Peterson, Stan Getz. Gypsy jazz - Django/Stef. Man, I’m leaving a lot out.

I’m never sure where to begin as far recommending where to start. Hard to predict what would resonate for you. You mentioned piano - if you want to be amazed, you should try Art Tatum. Or for something more ethereal, Bill Evans “Portrait in Jazz”. A lot of people suggest Miles Davis “Kind of Blue”, which is hard to argue against. For saxophone, hmmm - are you ready for John Coltrane “Giant Steps”? Any of the Stan Getz bossa nova stuff is probably a gentler introduction. A lot of people started with Charlie Parker with Strings. One interesting recording is Benny Carter’s “Further Definitions”, which has four fantastic sax players (Carter, Phil Woods, Coleman Hawkins, and Charlie Rouse) on some marvelous arrangements and a fantastic rhythm section. Or you might like Dave Brubeck “Time Out”, with some nice Paul Desmond sax along with Brubeck’s own piano style, and of course the odd time signatures.