The thing is that we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to put a quick end to the violence. Ironically enough that’s the same reason the Empire blew up Alderaan.
Did the Alderaanian army commit acts such as this on a regular basis?
As for the other point, granted, but I’m reasonably sure violence against gay people is much more common than violence against anti-gay people, and further that religion often plays a part in it.
Probably, but it’s not an argument against the religion itself being true or not.
There was nothing justified about the Crusades. It was just that the Roman church wanted the money that came from the pilgrim business.
That’s an overly simplistic view of history.
It’s accurate.
No, it’s incredibly un-nuanced.
It’s the equivalent of saying that the United States bombed Japan purely to be mean.
I’d still bet money that Hansi himself was a Wario64 sock account.
One happens, the other doesn’t, so the two are not analogous.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/floyd-lee-corkins-sentence_n_3902950.html
Or do you really think there aren’t plenty of examples of people using religion as an excuse for violence against gay people?
Of course there are.
The point is that calling it a sin can (in certain deranged people’s minds) justify hate and violence, and that makes it hate by extension at the least.
So because someone misinterprets what I believe to justify their hate and violence, means that I hate as well?
I’m not understanding this logic.
By that logic, hating the idea of calling homosexuality a sin is going to motivate people to murder anti-gay people.
“You’ll have to elaborate. From now on just assume that I’m too stupid to understand what you’re implying.”
I thought that was directed at me since I said something similar to you in the Religion thread. If that wasn’t your intent, I apologize for misunderstanding.
I just meant that he clearly thinks everyone can read his mind and understand what he means without him even giving something that resembles an explanation. I told him to assume I’m stupid so that he’ll just explain himself in the first place instead of playing this “you don’t get it” game that takes up half a page of a thread.
Yeah, that comic book with a sexy catwoman was just aimed at men and was sabotaged by women.
It doesn’t work that way.
You’ll have to elaborate. From now on just assume that I’m too stupid to understand what you’re implying.
Jesus, I wasn’t playing a game in the religion thread. I didn’t understand, I asked you to elaborate, and you did.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. He always posts tiny sentences that are usually five words or less that don’t mean anything and he expects me (or anyone else for that matter) to know exactly what he’s thinking.
Whether it’ll be watchable for me depends on how Adam Sandler-esque the humor is. If it’s to the extreme of the trailers, then I would probably walk out, not that I would ever spend money on this movie in the first place. I almost never see films in theaters, so for me to go it has to look really good.
Sex and the City is a show for women, it’s written for them. Men aren’t gonna think its as good as women do, because they’re not who the show’s for. So they rate the show lower. It isn’t an intentional act of sabotage, men don’t gather at secret meetings and talk about how they’re gonna rate shows poorly to demean women or some shit. And it’s not what I think yhwx was implying, that they hate it because the cast is female led. It’s just marketing. Comic books are marketed at men, so they include drawings of attractive women wearing provocative clothing. Things are marketed to specific groups, and the people outside those groups aren’t gonna be interested.
The irony is that the implication is that these men shouldn’t be rating Sex and the City in the first place, which is I why I brought up the comic book being for men and women should keep their mouths shut, because it’s the same mindset. I don’t care about either. I don’t care what ratings my media gets. Listen, I’ve had a rough night and hell, if I cared about critics’ reviews then I wouldn’t love the fuckin’ Eagles man!
In this case, you can’t just take the fact that men tend to give media with women led casts lower ratings, reverse it, and just say it’s true.
Realistically, most men probably aren’t going to find Sex and the City, which was the articles prominent example, as enjoyable as women do. The average male rating was a little below 6/10 and the average female rating was higher than that. Sounds like sabotage to me. By the way, the Ghostbusters remake has a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes.
EDIT: From now on yhwx, if you just post some passive and unclear comment I’m not going to respond to it. I can’t read minds. Make yourself clear in the first place. You could’ve just said this in the first place, without the “it doesn’t work that way” crap. It’s a waste of time, and each post costs Jay two cents.
Yeah, that comic book with a sexy catwoman was just aimed at men and was sabotaged by women.
It doesn’t work that way.
You’ll have to elaborate. From now on just assume that I’m too stupid to understand what you’re implying.
Apparently the humor is incredibly low-brow. Based on specific examples, it sounds like humor I’d expect from a direct-to-video American Pie sequel. Also, it sounds like a remake, not a reboot.
I thought that scene was like something I’d see in American Pie, not one of it’s direct-to-video sequels.
Yeah, that comic book with a sexy catwoman was just aimed at men and was sabotaged by women.
I’m reading reviews of the Ghostbusters remake and all of these assholes (including whoever writes on Roger Ebert’s site) are all talking about how everyone (their words, not mine) is just pissed off because they hate women. Bullshit. Is it really that impossible for these fuckers to comprehend that perhaps people don’t want to see a classic movie remade in a way that looks (based on the trailer) to be shit? I’m also seeing people hating on the original movie too; the hack who runs Roger Ebert’s website talks about how dumb it is that Sigourney Weaver turns into a dog, and how all these evil kids are refusing to buy a ticket because they hate women. I’m not going to spend 25$ on an outing to the theatre to see something that doesn’t look good. If someone remade Star Wars and the trailer had a scene in which Han Solo (who is played by Amy Poehler) says “Darth Vader threw up on me and it got in every crack,” and Luke screams, “GET OUTTA MY FRIEND YOU DAMN GHOST! The power of Christ compel you!” I wouldn’t see it either, not because I hate women but because it’s a remake of a beloved movie that looks terrible.
Apparently the humor is incredibly low-brow. Based on specific examples, it sounds like humor I’d expect from a direct-to-video American Pie sequel. Also, it sounds like a remake, not a reboot.
Obviously the rating is based on all critics, not top critics. Unless you have an example of another movie that is handled differently, I still don’t see what you are bitching about.
Jesus Christ it just a fucking comment.
Any ratings below 60% have always been “rotten”, or green. Ghostbusters gets a red bar “positive” rating even when at a 57.
Leave them, because having a bunch of posts that are just a “.” make you look slow and are just confusing.
.
Why do you post things and then delete them and replace it with a period?
You have to click on the top critic heading to see it.
Angry Joe has a review out already and trashes it for an hour across two videos (one kinda sorta spoiler-free and the other not). RLM mentioned it in their Re:View of the original Ghostbusters, and they didn’t seem too hopeful about it.
I’m not sure which person said it, but “cynical cashgrab” seems right on to me.
To be fair, I think that there’s an amount of people who will hate it no matter what and people who will love it no matter what, regardless of quality, which is why I bet Jeremy Jahns (who just reeks of a people pleaser to me; no offense to anyone that likes him) gave it a “good time if you’re drunk” rating. Just based on the trailer it looks like a cynical cashgrab and the humour is terrible! I was really pissed off by the people online claiming that the only reason no one liked the trailer was because of misogyny. Either way, I’ll check out Joe’s review and then RLM’s inevitable review.
So much hope for this movie. All squandered.
I’m not bothered by it, but I don’t see why you would be excited for it based on the trailer. Was the part where she gets thrown up on and then says “oh no, it got in my asshole” the part that convinced you that it would be great?
I checked other movies (including the Phantom Menace) that have lower than a 60% and they are labelled as “Rotten”. One of the reviews literally just said something along the lines of “I’m glad girls can have a Ghostbusters movie now”, or some BS along those lines. Not a word about the quality of the movie. I’m curious to see what some reviewers on Youtube say (not Jeremy Jahns). RedLetterMedia in particular.
Unless it has something to do with the “Certified” rating (which I’ve never understood), then I don’t get why it says it’s positive for 57% on the top critics.
The Ghostbusters remake has a 57% from the “Top Critics” on Rotten Tomatoes, but it still says it’s “fresh” with a 57%. Less than 60 is supposed to be “rotten”.
