My thinking is that worshipping a god that only forgives those that kiss his ass hard enough and then pretending that such a god is a benevolent and all-loving character is insulting to me because you’re expecting me to accept a blatant contradiction.
Oh wow, obviously he’s not a real scientist anymore. Unlike other people, I don’t look for likable personal qualities in public figures that I like. I like NDT because he’s smart, usually funny, and thoughtful. I don’t like him because I want to sit next to him in a theater. I don’t care about his moviegoing habits, just like I don’t care about John Lennon’s parenting, or Joan Rivers’ psychotic comments on the Obamas, or MLK’s womanizing. I appreciate talent, intelligence, and accomplishments when it comes to public figures, not their Twitter feed or their bad personal lives. As long as they don’t demonstrate Bill Cosby levels of maniacal behavior then I can pretty easily separate the personality from his or her contributions to society.
Screening it for free to a select audience that likely includes Disney people as part of a presentation on his abilities as a film restorationist probably doesn’t require much EXCLUSIVE permission.
Yeah, it’s awful.
The focus of that event has little to do with Star Wars and more to do with film remastering in general.
The drawing cost “$12 per face.”
Lol.
I wonder how they’d charge Tommy Lee Jones. . .
BAD BATMAN FOREVER JOKE ALERT!
Even if they are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways, it doesn’t matter. It’s like a business owner in the 1960s saying “I would never segregate my customers based on race, but I don’t believe we have a civil rights issue in this country and no action should be taken about it and I’ll vote for politicians that oppose civil rights legislation.” They’re still wrong.
Sex-negativity creates rather than prevents perverts.
Definitely.
I just don’t take disagreements well as my posts might indicate. I actually don’t take much of anything well, now that I think about it.
You don’t say.
I just did.
Curious what people would think if Ryan did away with the chaplain position because he’s sick and tired of Catholics.
Most of the right things in history have been done for the wrong reasons. If you’re waiting for nobility, you’re in for a long wait, especially with this crowd.
It’s my view that merely having a bad reason for an otherwise allowed official act isn’t enough to render it void. If we were waiting for nobility, nothing would ever be done in this country.
Sometimes intent figures into legality, in which case it could be enough to at least legally void an action. But bad/stupid reasons don’t 100% overlap with illegal reasons. Hating Catholics would be an illegal reason, so in your example, the action would not be legal. Motivated by hate of the individual would be legal, or even hate of his haircut, but motivated by hate of the protected class is not. Hard to prove that in court, though, unless he was dumb enough to talk openly about it.
Intent does figure into legality but thusfar has remained subsidiary to the act itself. There are those who would like to see intent used to invalidate actions that are otherwise legal.
This is an issue raised in the case of the baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Justice Kennedy - who is on the side of thinking intent extremely important - suggested there may be “a significant aspect of hostility to a religion in this case” based in part on a statement by a state official.
The idea that courts can decide whether a law is legal or not based essentially on perceived motivations is dangerous and impractical.
What’s so scary about it? Shooting someone because you hate the way they look is a different scenario than shooting someone because the spirit animal of Jodie Foster told you to do it in a dream. Refusing to serve someone because they’re black (or gay) is different than refusing to serve someone because they once wronged you personally somehow.
I’m just trying to imagine how this questioning goes. I mean do you ask the guy after the interview “Are you black? Oh, that’s interesting. I’ll check this box here then.” But then what is black exactly? I mean what % counts? 1/2? 1/4? 1/16?
And why does it matter?
It seems to me it only matters if someone’s trying to figure out what “they” think. Which obviously means that “they’re” a group. Which obviously means there’s a common thought being pulled from that group. Which obviously means someone somewhere will be tempted to say: “Black people think this way. Black people vote this way. Black people are this way.”
If that’s not grouping by race and labeling by race I’m not sure what is. I mean what’s the difference between being racist (judging based on race) and playing with racial statistics (predicting based on race)?
I think you need to do some research into why “color blindness” is considered problematic.
This is one of the rare occurrences where I agree with that sentiment. I do think all people, meaning individuals interacting with each other, need to be color blind but it makes perfect sense to measure how different demographics are receiving leaders or policies.
I think 1/4 counts.
Maybe. It’s all in the past now.
I’m sure that wasn’t TV’s fault. Maybe the non-TV activities I was exposed to were just extra horrific. Or there’s just something horribly wrong with me. I won’t rule that out.
My older sister is my favorite person on the planet, by far.
My older sister and I are friendly, but I do not count her as a “friend”. A close acquaintance, maybe. She watches my kiddo sometimes, and we can have a reasonable conversation about random things (in a group, say at a family party). However, she and I don’t have any similar interests but one, never hang out for any particular reason, and we don’t seek out each other’s opinion on really anything.
You let close acquaintances watch your kiddo?
Other than reading, I’m not convinced that those are better than TV and video games. The best moments of my childhood were when I was alone and in front of the TV. Every time that winning formula was fucked with, bad things happened.
Yeah, typically it’s the anti-TV and anti-video game crowd that are more out of touch with reality.
I’m wary of putting kids in front of screens, more so handheld devices.
Your kids? Or other people’s kids?
I was speaking, prospectively, of my own, on the view it isn’t healthy for kids in general.
Depends on the kid and the amount and the content.
I wager there are those kids who don’t fare worse in cognitive studies, I intend to play it safe as I can.
I doubt very seriously that any kids are worse off for their time in front of the TV.
There was no humor implied and your follow up posts seemed to also not imply an attempt at humor.
Why else would I say what I said? Do you honestly think I’m embarking on a crusade against parents of children that watch shows that I’m opposed to?
I think you (just like me) are the kind of person that will say something they believe, even if they aren’t going on a crusade about it.
Unless every single opinion you’ve posted here is just an attempt at humor, which I’m pretty sure is not the case.
We can keep going if you want but I think I’m done.
I do believe it, but I was phrasing it in a way that I found amusing and wasn’t trying to offer unsolicited parenting advice.
My older sister is my favorite person on the planet, by far.
I’m wary of putting kids in front of screens, more so handheld devices.
Your kids? Or other people’s kids?
I was speaking, prospectively, of my own, on the view it isn’t healthy for kids in general.
Yeah, they might turn out like me.
If I had kids, and I never will, I wouldn’t care too much about the harmless kids shows they watch on TV. I would, however, not let them on YouTube or other online video places, where the content aimed at young kids is genuinely terrifying.
There’s also just a lot of horrible shit on the internet that is totally uncensored and only a click away. The worst someone can see on TV is still compliant with the FCC so it’s safer to leave kids unsupervised in front of a TV.
I didn’t say you were a problem. It’s an objective fact that kids shows exist because kids watch them.
wrong, but cool brash statement.
How is that wrong? If no one watched these shows, I don’t think the networks would be producing them.
you are making the exact kind of brash statement i fault NDG and Bill Nye for making all the time (and that makes me sigh). It is missing the nuance of the truth. This is a chicken and egg situation, and obviously, kids couldn’t have watched shows that didn’t exist, so of course that isn’t why they exist. they exist due to a combination of people wanting to entertain/educate children, and children watching them.
I was talking about a specific show and made a jab at it that I found humorous and now I’m having to defend it as both parenting advice and commentary on the business model of network television. Perhaps everyone took my statement to seriously. Is that possible?
you asked me for clarification, indicating you cared. I on the other hand, don’t care.
I do care what other people think of me and what I say, unfortunately.
There was no humor implied and your follow up posts seemed to also not imply an attempt at humor.
Why else would I say what I said? Do you honestly think I’m embarking on a crusade against parents of children that watch shows that I’m opposed to? Also, do I really come across as the type of person that cares at all about the activities of other people’s kids? And my followup posts weren’t humorous because I don’t like being reminded of how much I fail at everything I set out to do.
Yeah, it didn’t occur to me either. It’s actually a pretty clever use of this thread but the whole “expand” feature makes it tougher.