RicOlie_2

Not pentacurious!?!?

If any of that "Jedi Hunter" stuff is true, my interest in the new films will plummet. I don't want to even hear the word Sith in the ST, never mind have a resurrected one (not that I have anything against Sith, but the EU is too full of them as it is).

Olde Wan Kenobi said:

Frink of televisual renown, thou sees socks at every turn. I wonder good sir, are thine feet cold?

But oh dear lord in heaven I writeth my next with no jest, as I remind ye of the sad death of poor Rush Clovis the young and chiseled. Fallen and splattered from heights lofty in episode the seventh of The Warring Clones Tales final whimper this very year.

Sadeth for fickle Padme at least, who else among us mourns for dull bags of tools such as these?

Hmm...OWK/AWK... ;)

I'm afraid you'll have to touch up on your archaic English. You write with a thick modern accent.

Please share your ideas here as well. I'm curious to see what people can come up with. There are naysayers who disagree that the movies could be any good without spoilers for the OT, but I think that if the PT was done vastly differently than it was, it could have been pulled off.

Thanks for this, SilverWook. I don't mind finding out spoilers, since I likely won't see the movie within the first few days of its release, and will have it ruined then, if not earlier. However, I'm happy that the same spoilers won't be repeated all over the forum, clogging up all the existing threads with their presence, so I'm glad you're limiting them to one spot.

OK, everyone go find a corner and sit there until you cool down. And everyone take your own corners (without fighting over them).

I believe Jetrell Fo was making a joke...

I love Wookieepedia. However, I'm glad that most of its contents aren't canon anymore.

I can't imagine what the practical benefit of that would be.

You sure the second isn't just two lightsabres (one with a curved hilt)?

I have to say I really like your ideas about the force.

ALLOL

TheBoost said:

darth_ender said:

TheBoost said:

If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.

 If TheBoost is telling me that I have the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and that there should be protests if anyone wishes to infringe on that right, then maybe I'm starting to see his point.

 

Regardless of the laws of the land, my church will never perform homosexual marriages.  We have the right to discriminate, just like we can discriminate against marriage with animals (with definable personalities, at least).  Such is the nature of freedom. 

 I think we're in agreement here Endy. 

For example. I would never let my son be a Boy Scout, and I tell them to fuck off when I see their organization at the supermarket, but they have the right as a private organization to be prejudiced, discriminatory assholes. 

(I also believe the government is justified in limiting the right to be discriminatory cunts in certain cases, like job hiring, housing, lunch counters, etc).

But the BSA admits "We don't like no queers, and don't want no queers around. Praise Jesus."  They ADMIT they are discriminatory fucks. 

(Although Ender, when finding common ground, it kinda hurts when in one breath you somehow see a parity between gay marriage and marrying animals. Just an FYI)

 I agree with what ender wrote. The freedoms of religion, speech, and the press all allow us Canadians and Americans to discriminate. That's the beauty of a free country. You can discriminate in many ways. I wouldn't want it any other way. People discriminate against my beliefs when they try to force their values on me.

However, I think that anything that is not a choice should not be discriminated against. It should not be legal for people to discriminate against homosexuals just because they are homosexuals, and it should not be legal to discriminate against someone because they are black, or brown, or white.

But religion is a choice, and so is homosexual marriage. I think that discrimination should be allowed in those areas, with the exception of the government, which should protect people's right to discriminate while avoiding discrimination itself.

In my religion, the Sacrament of Communion is limited only to baptized Catholics who have not committed a mortal sin without going to confession. Is that discrimination? In a way it is, but I don't think anyone should be able to come in and force us to allow non-Catholic communicants.

In the same way, I don't think anyone should be able to come in and say that a Christian (not public) university shouldn't be allowed to prohibit attendance based on the moral beliefs of the Christian religion. Homosexuals are still allowed at the university--it would be discrimination if they weren't--but they are bound to the same rules as everyone else.

How is that not fair? Would you be opposed to the university prohibiting polygamous or incestual marriages and sexual activity among its students and staff?

I think the right to one's own religion, and the rights to free speech and the freedom of the press should outweigh any other rights, like the "right to marriage". I would like to see some valid reasons why that shouldn't be so.

And remember, if this was a public university, it would be a different scenario. But it isn't. You don't think that practicing homosexuals should be allowed into the seminary, do you? There are even more rigid rules about sex at one of those.

TheBoost said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TheBoost said:

 

 I understand the reasoning, but I disagree with it. It's a Christian law school, and it prohibits sex outside of marriage. Period. Marriage in the Christian religion (aside from some more liberal denominations) is, by definition, between heterosexuals. It isn't discrimination, it's just what we consider marriage to be. Also, people choose to have sex, they don't choose to be black or white. The rules don't prohibit homosexuals from attending the school--that would indeed be wrongful discrimination--they just prohibit sex outside of marriage for staff/students in attendance.

 Again, not claiming to know anything about Canadian law, education, or customs (don't they have some kind of tribal vendetta system?) but "It's not discrimination, it's just discrimination" doesn't hold water.

The house I used to live in, on the deed said "This house cannot be sold to Jews." That's not discrimination. The same rules applied to non-Jews. Is that discrimination?

Of course it's still discrimination. What I'm complaining about here would be more like the deed saying that the house could not be rented out and people complaining about discrimination against renting it out to Jews.

When we were beating Native Americans who spoke their own language or practiced their own religion in forced boarding schools, those rules against speaking and practicing also applied to white Christians. Was that discrimination?

No, it wasn't discrimination any more than Alexander the Great's Hellenization of his empire. It was unjust, but the residential schools were not discriminatory. The Europeans had conquered the territory, and like most conquerors do, they submitted the conquered peoples to their rule. It wasn't in the form of an actual invasion and war (though their were wars), but the outcome was the same. 

If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.

 It's a private university, so it should be able to ask for Christian conduct. According to Christian religious belief, gay marriages are not genuine marriages.

Discrimination would look more like this:

heterosexuals can have sex; homosexuals must abstain from sex.

However, the rule is that everyone must practice abstinence unless they are married. There is equal "discrimination" against the unmarried, so why aren't their rights being defended? Why is the prohibition of homosexual sex being singled out?

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I tried following one once, but it didn't move and I got bored, so I stopped after a while.

;)

On a more serious note, I'm disgusted at the bigotry being displayed towards Trinity Western's law school.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/lawyers+vote+overwhelmingly+against+Trinity+Western+school+amid+claims+discrimination/9926606/story.html#ixzz34NU8NWxh

It's a Christian law school--should they not be allowed to dictate their own rules? They aren't even discriminating against gays like people are claiming because the same rules apply to heterosexuals. I don't know how they enforce their rules which apply to the most private part of people's lives, but they should be allowed to do so. If people have a problem with that, they can go to a different school. I can't believe that people don't recognize that they are opposing freedom of religion when they oppose the rules upheld by the law school, but think they're doing a service to "gay rights" instead.

/rant

 Is this law school a privately owned school?  Do they receive any goverment fundiing?

 

 Being that it's a Christian, and not a public university, I would assume that it is not government funded, or at least not fully so. I can't remember if private universities like that get any funding from the government, but I would guess that they don't.

TheBoost said:

RicOlie_2 said:

On a more serious note, I'm disgusted at the bigotry being displayed towards Trinity Western's law school.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/lawyers+vote+overwhelmingly+against+Trinity+Western+school+amid+claims+discrimination/9926606/story.html#ixzz34NU8NWxh

It's a Christian law school--should they not be allowed to dictate their own rules? They aren't even discriminating against gays like people are claiming because the same rules apply to heterosexuals. I don't know how they enforce their rules which apply to the most private part of people's lives, but they should be allowed to do so. If people have a problem with that, they can go to a different school. I can't believe that people don't recognize that they are opposing freedom of religion when they oppose the rules upheld by the law school, but think they're doing a service to "gay rights" instead.

/rant

 I'm not going to pretend to be an expert. Before clicking that link i didn't even know Canada has laws.

BUT sir, you're being extremely disingenuous if you say

They aren't even discriminating against gays like people are claiming because the same rules apply to heterosexuals.

Because the rule is:

They were particularly concerned about the import of the evangelical covenant that the university insists staff, faculty and students sign, which forbids sex outside of heterosexual marriage.

This is of itself, discriminatory. 

In the past here in America, we had a law that said only white people could vote. Same rules applied to white and black people. Was that discriminatory?

 I understand the reasoning, but I disagree with it. It's a Christian law school, and it prohibits sex outside of marriage. Period. Marriage in the Christian religion (aside from some more liberal denominations) is, by definition, between heterosexuals. It isn't discrimination, it's just what we consider marriage to be. Also, people choose to have sex, they don't choose to be black or white. The rules don't prohibit homosexuals from attending the school--that would indeed be wrongful discrimination--they just prohibit sex outside of marriage for staff/students in attendance.

I disagree. It greatly depends on how they do the movie. Heck, he doesn't have to even be the protagonist to be the focus of the movie. If they did it right, they could easily get away with it.

That would indeed by amazing. It would also be fantastic if they canonized the OOT and re-designated the SE to be what its name implies. They'll have to do that if they want Boba in the OT to be different than Boba in the PT.

I think it's improved, except for the addition of Zull's final line of dialogue. It was more effective to have Zull respond with silence. Unless you aren't planning on having Siri win over Zull, I think you should change it back.

I tried following one once, but it didn't move and I got bored, so I stopped after a while.

;)

On a more serious note, I'm disgusted at the bigotry being displayed towards Trinity Western's law school.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/lawyers+vote+overwhelmingly+against+Trinity+Western+school+amid+claims+discrimination/9926606/story.html#ixzz34NU8NWxh

It's a Christian law school--should they not be allowed to dictate their own rules? They aren't even discriminating against gays like people are claiming because the same rules apply to heterosexuals. I don't know how they enforce their rules which apply to the most private part of people's lives, but they should be allowed to do so. If people have a problem with that, they can go to a different school. I can't believe that people don't recognize that they are opposing freedom of religion when they oppose the rules upheld by the law school, but think they're doing a service to "gay rights" instead.

/rant

No.

I had no idea it was Spider-Man and not Spiderman. Well, I guess I know better now. I promise not to utilize the incorrect form of the name in the future.

Nice and rainy up here. We've had a few thundershowers, but no real storms. The rest of the time it's been pretty warm (about 25-30 degrees C). 

Pink BeatELO said:

TV's Frink said:

Yes! 

Someone once suggested replacing Snakes with Sith and Plane with Senate, but I don't know how it will sound.

 I imagine it would sound quite similar to this:

https://soundcloud.com/pink-beatelo/sith-on-a-senate

 It would only work if it was possible to make the tone of voice of "Sith" and "senate" sound the same, or similar to, the rest of the line.

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

In that case, please also remember you know a few pro life people online that do not act like nothing happened.

 Ditto.  This sort of loss cannot be overcome easily.  I will reveal to you all that my wife has been on bed rest for the past 3+/- weeks due to vaginal bleeding and a fear of pending miscarriage.  We had an appointment on Thursday, and everything appears to be okay for the time being, though she is to remain on bed rest for another month to be sure.  But even the fear of losing our baby has truly had me scared out of my mind.  I can't imagine what it was like for you, TV's, and I pray I never have to face a choice as difficult as yours or long-lastingly painful.  Thanks for having shared your story.

 I guessed you were dealing with something like that. I'm sorry to hear it ender. I'll keep you in my prayers as well.