Warbler

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

Why even bother arguing with him when he still doesn’t even understand what’s happening after having it spelled out for him upwards of 20 times? They. Are. Not. Protesting. The. Anthem. Protesting the anthem and protesting DURING the anthem for exposure aren’t the same fucking thing but I don’t know why I’m bothering to explain this because I know you still won’t accept it.

We will just have to agree to disagree on whether or not they are protesting the anthem.

You’re insane. You can argue they are disrespecting the anthem if you want, but you cannot argue that they are protesting the anthem. They aren’t and there is no “opinion” about it. They are not protesting the anthem. Fact. Full stop.

agree to disagree

*sigh*

*sigh*

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

Why even bother arguing with him when he still doesn’t even understand what’s happening after having it spelled out for him upwards of 20 times? They. Are. Not. Protesting. The. Anthem. Protesting the anthem and protesting DURING the anthem for exposure aren’t the same fucking thing but I don’t know why I’m bothering to explain this because I know you still won’t accept it.

We will just have to agree to disagree on whether or not they are protesting the anthem.

The anthem is just a vehicle for their protest. Why can’t you accept that?

Because I don’t think the anthem should be used that way.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

Jesus Christ.

*sigh*

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

Why even bother arguing with him when he still doesn’t even understand what’s happening after having it spelled out for him upwards of 20 times? They. Are. Not. Protesting. The. Anthem. Protesting the anthem and protesting DURING the anthem for exposure aren’t the same fucking thing but I don’t know why I’m bothering to explain this because I know you still won’t accept it.

We will just have to agree to disagree on whether or not they are protesting the anthem.

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

Frank your Majesty said:

Warbler said:

Frank your Majesty said:

Then there is the closed loop, like in Harry Potter, which makes lots of sense, but allows for some paradoxes and negates free will. Also, alternate timelines can’t exist.

What paradoxes does it create?

Harry can cast the patronus because he saw himself casting a patronus. This breaks causality.

He saw himself doing it, and it gave him self confidence that he could do it. It is not that he can cast the patronus because he saw himself do it, it is that he can cast the patronus because he has the ability and knew he had the ability because he saw himself do it. I don’t see the problem.

darth_ender said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

ChainsawAsh said:

He says in that scene that they created an alternate 1985 and can’t go back to the original timeline without undoing the very creation of the alternate timeline.

Why can’t you, if both timelines exist?

Because they have a time machine, not a universe-hopping machine. They’re stuck in a particular timeline, and if they create a divergent one, they get stuck in the new one until they can undo what caused the creation of the new one. If they had a portal gun like Rick from Rick and Morty, they could just say “Ah, fuck it, too much work” and hop back to the original timeline.

Think of it like train tracks. When they create a divergence, they create a switch on the tracks to a new railway, but they don’t have the tools to simply move the switch back to the original railway to get back to it. They have to dismantle the switch altogether, which means going back slightly further than the creation of the switch and preventing its creation.

Another fun thing to think about: they’re not even trying to go back to the original timeline, since Marty created a new one in BTTF1 when he went back to 1955 and got hit by the car instead of his dad. The timeline created in BTTF2 is actually the third timeline. They’re trying to get back to the second timeline. Which raises the ethical question of, what about the original timeline? Do that version of Marty’s parents think their son went missing/was kidnapped by Lybian nationalists? And what happened to the Marty from timeline 2, the one who remembers growing up with his “fixed” parents? When he went back, did he change something else and wind up coming back to a fourth timeline? Did he get stuck in 1955 while timeline 1 Marty got to go back to the future? Is there a timeline where two, or three, or four Martys show up on 1955 Doc’s doorstep?

none of that makes sense to me. It makes more sense if there is just one timeline that just gets altered over and over again.

Really? None of that makes sense to you? As in 0% of it makes sense to you? That was explained excellently.

His pattern indicates 1-dimensional thinking (in terms of time travel).

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

ChainsawAsh said:

He says in that scene that they created an alternate 1985 and can’t go back to the original timeline without undoing the very creation of the alternate timeline.

Why can’t you, if both timelines exist?

Because they have a time machine, not a universe-hopping machine. They’re stuck in a particular timeline, and if they create a divergent one, they get stuck in the new one until they can undo what caused the creation of the new one. If they had a portal gun like Rick from Rick and Morty, they could just say “Ah, fuck it, too much work” and hop back to the original timeline.

Think of it like train tracks. When they create a divergence, they create a switch on the tracks to a new railway, but they don’t have the tools to simply move the switch back to the original railway to get back to it. They have to dismantle the switch altogether, which means going back slightly further than the creation of the switch and preventing its creation.

Another fun thing to think about: they’re not even trying to go back to the original timeline, since Marty created a new one in BTTF1 when he went back to 1955 and got hit by the car instead of his dad. The timeline created in BTTF2 is actually the third timeline. They’re trying to get back to the second timeline. Which raises the ethical question of, what about the original timeline? Do that version of Marty’s parents think their son went missing/was kidnapped by Lybian nationalists? And what happened to the Marty from timeline 2, the one who remembers growing up with his “fixed” parents? When he went back, did he change something else and wind up coming back to a fourth timeline? Did he get stuck in 1955 while timeline 1 Marty got to go back to the future? Is there a timeline where two, or three, or four Martys show up on 1955 Doc’s doorstep?

none of that makes sense to me. It makes more sense if there is just one timeline that just gets altered over and over again.

Really? None of that makes sense to you? As in 0% of it makes sense to you? That was explained excellently.

no matter how many times you say it, it doesn’t make sense that going back in time and changing history will suddenly create a new universe and now there are two when before there was just one.

moviefreakedmind said:

ChainsawAsh said:
But everything official about ST09 says that the Kelvin timeline is a separate entity that exists alongside the prime timeline, and it’s somewhat exasperating to me that you espouse strict adherence to official canon on the one hand while blatantly ignoring official canon in favor of your personal interpretation on the other (albeit for a different fictional universe).

LOL! This is so true.

*sigh*

ChainsawAsh said:

If it doesn’t make sense to you, I don’t know how I can explain it in a more clear manner, so I’ll do my best to leave it alone.

I agree.

But everything official about ST09 says that the Kelvin timeline is a separate entity that exists alongside the prime timeline,

everything except, imho, ST09 itself. Sorry, but that is my honest interpretation of the events of the movie.

and it’s somewhat exasperating to me that you espouse strict adherence to official canon on the one hand while blatantly ignoring official canon in favor of your personal interpretation on the other (albeit for a different fictional universe).

It is my own interpretation of something(ST09) that is itself official canon. If everyone in charge of official canon said that Chekov and not Kirk was Captain of the Enterprise and yet you can clearly see from the tv series’ and movies that Kirk is the Captain, what would do? You would say the people, no matter how official they are, that are saying Chekov was Captain were wrong because you can clearly see from the movies and tv series’ that Kirk was the Captain.

But at this point I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere by continuing to discuss it.

I agree with you here.

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

ChainsawAsh said:

He says in that scene that they created an alternate 1985 and can’t go back to the original timeline without undoing the very creation of the alternate timeline.

Why can’t you, if both timelines exist?

Because they have a time machine, not a universe-hopping machine. They’re stuck in a particular timeline, and if they create a divergent one, they get stuck in the new one until they can undo what caused the creation of the new one. If they had a portal gun like Rick from Rick and Morty, they could just say “Ah, fuck it, too much work” and hop back to the original timeline.

Think of it like train tracks. When they create a divergence, they create a switch on the tracks to a new railway, but they don’t have the tools to simply move the switch back to the original railway to get back to it. They have to dismantle the switch altogether, which means going back slightly further than the creation of the switch and preventing its creation.

Another fun thing to think about: they’re not even trying to go back to the original timeline, since Marty created a new one in BTTF1 when he went back to 1955 and got hit by the car instead of his dad. The timeline created in BTTF2 is actually the third timeline. They’re trying to get back to the second timeline. Which raises the ethical question of, what about the original timeline? Do that version of Marty’s parents think their son went missing/was kidnapped by Lybian nationalists? And what happened to the Marty from timeline 2, the one who remembers growing up with his “fixed” parents? When he went back, did he change something else and wind up coming back to a fourth timeline? Did he get stuck in 1955 while timeline 1 Marty got to go back to the future? Is there a timeline where two, or three, or four Martys show up on 1955 Doc’s doorstep?

none of that makes sense to me. It makes more sense if there is just one timeline that just gets altered over and over again.

Time travel is confusing and tough to write, man.

I agree.

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

maybe.

Where pedophilia scandals being discovered back when she tore up the picture? I don’t remember the pedophilia scandal being all that big at that point in time.

what point was that?

darth_ender said:

Warbler, there are days…

Sorry, I really don’t mean to annoy you.

ChainsawAsh said:

He says in that scene that they created an alternate 1985 and can’t go back to the original timeline without undoing the very creation of the alternate timeline.

Why can’t you, if both timelines exist?

Again to me it just makes more sense that when you go make time and change history, you change the already existing timeline and replace it, not create another timeline and now there are two existing timelines.

bad example if you think I am wrong. In the bttf movies they kept screwing the timeline up and then had to fix it. They didn’t create an entire other universe, they altered the already existing one.

what?

DominicCobb said:

ChainsawAsh said:

But if that was the intention, they would have said “he’s rewritten history” instead of “he’s created an alternate timeline,” no?

Yeah. They used “alternate” thinking everyone would get it. Evidently, somehow, at least one person did not.

*sigh*

ChainsawAsh said:

But if that was the intention, they would have said “he’s rewritten history” instead of “he’s created an alternate timeline,” no?

maybe

possible I suppose.