twister111

September 9th
Also Sept. 9th but lower price because it's DVD.

RicOlie_2 said:

In such a scenario, the girl was arguably meant to live long enough to reproduce. If God is real, he would have allowed her to live and it wouldn't have gone against his plan for that girl. If God is not real, she was not "meant" to die young, so she would be just as culpable as if she had been born entirely healthy and had been expected to live a long life.

There's a lot to respond to here and I've got to do something soon. So I'll just respond to one point now and the rest later.

darth_ender said:

How are the two at all connected?  I don't understand how you can claim my analogies are so flawed, then come up with your bizarre and irrelevant analogies and find them better.

darth_ender said: I can see the argument to be made for an embryo not being a child (though I don't agree), but I don't see the sperm comparison as valid. Left to its own devices, a sperm will never develop, never survive independently, never make it past a single cell, is not even genetically human as it is lacking half its chromosomes. Once fused with an ovum, suddenly it multiplies, has the potential to grow into a 100 year-old man or woman, as long as health or the influence of others don't hinder it. It requires life-saving reliance on another human for a time, but it is still genetically a unique human, growing, ultimately with the likelihood of survival on its own.

darth_ender said:Thanks for the summaries and for catching my poor phrasing. I'd meant originally to say, If I am not only the only....but I am also the reason," but clearly forgot how I was originally writing my sentence by the time I got to that point. I edited it, but as "If I am the only...and I am the reason," as it's probably less likely to get confused that way by future readers. Thanks for pointing that out :)

darth_ender said:I see. It seems still over the top. Maybe to improve it, the organ loaned would not be so critical as the heart (which unlike the uterus [which is designed exclusively for pregnancy, btw, and therefore is fulfilling its design, while a heart transplant does not], is absolutely essential for human life to continue).

darth_ender said:Perhaps a kidney would be best. A person can live without it, but the potential for death from the surgery or future loss of the other kidney probably better matches the risk. And in a finite period of time, the person would get the kidney back.

I know, it seems like splitting hairs, but while we're on the topic of refining analogies, let's get them right ;)

RicOlie_2 said:

Yes, the kidney analogy is far more appropriate.

Twister, you exaggerate the risk involved in pregnancy by a hundredfold, and you are forgetting that both ender and I share the belief that abortion is justified in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Your concerns about C-Section are exaggerated as well, as the procedure carries less risk than you seem to imply. That's how I was born, and my mother had six kids after me, and I know other women who have had C-Sections.

You also ignore the risk of abortion, and in your analogies, don't portray that option as having side-effects. Some women, who have had abortions are not incapable of having children, because their uterus was damaged in the operation. Not to mention the emotional and psychological effects it can have, and the loss of a life and a person (not that you consider it a person, but it at least has the potential to become a happy, intelligent, and productive human being.

darth_ender said:

Remember that even post-birth children still require the physical, emotional, and monetary resources of their caregivers for survival. My children take a toll on my health and billfold. But I don't think I'd get away with aborting them at this point it their lives. As unique individuals of my creation, I am now responsible for their survival, regardless of the fact that I am less healthy than I would be if I didn't have them.

Recently rewatched Memento. I made a tumblr post about my rewatch experience.

Here's two vids that might help you out.

The Robert Rodriguez: 10 Minute Film School
Has some outdated/incorrect information but for the most part it's pretty good.

Plus here's another one:
State of Cinema: Steven Soderbergh

large succulent and juicy pumpkin.

More aliens arrive. See destruction

frosting ginger root spider eating

darth_ender said:

First I'll admit that I don't fully understand your scenarios, as I find your phrasing confusing.  

darth_ender said:

But I also find your analogy over the top. Donating your heart and blood? Come on! Loaning your body for a finite time is far different than giving up organs indefinitely. My analogy is definitely closer to the real thing. And as consuming as pregnancy is (as I lie next to my pregnant wife, typing this, and not revealing the difficulties she has had lately), generally the difficulties are not nearly as bad as you convey in your analogy.

darth_ender said:

Money issues were not my intent either, though I can see how one might interpret it that way. My intent was to simply draw in the fact that it is draining on the couple, but the drain does not justify the euthanasia. See my post with the statistics to see my view on the inconvenience of pregnancy, that it is not always about money, but that it is nearly always about convenience of some sort.

darth_ender said:It's true, my analogy wasn't perfect, but no analogy is.  Frankly, yours is awful and clearly suited to meet your own ends.

darth_ender said:A popular abortion analogy is that of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_Violinist">Famous Violinist</a>.  If you want to call an analogy "horribly flawed," this one is far more deserving than mine.  But let's improve it by combining it with mine but using it in the way you interpreted mine.  The famous violinist is hooked up to the other individual because of the drunk driving scenario I put forth.  If I am not only the only person who has the proper blood type to keep that violinist alive, and I am the reason he is in his predicament, then I am indeed obliged to devote my resources to his survival.  It was my choice.  I was pro-choice to get into that situation by drinking and driving.  With that form of pro-choice, I am also pro-consequence.

darth_ender said:Mine showed how the irresponsibility of a couple led to a potential human being. That is my point. I could refine it with blood donations and such, but that is hardly the point of the analogy. The point is that we are talking about someone who, according to definitions made by those justifying abortion (rather than the natural definition), are not people. Just potential people. The primary purpose of the analogy is to point out that killing a potential person is really killing a person. The only further justification that can be offered is further refinement to the definition of a person: a person has a history, even if at present he has no self-awareness. But in reality this is not true either. If we were guaranteed that Terri Schiavo would make a full recovery, would not the termination of her life been immoral? But nevertheless, she was not a person, according to the "pro-choice" crowd, at the time of her death. She would one day become such, but was not at the time. Does the inconvenience of her existence now justify killing off what she will be later before she gets to that point? No.

RicOlie_2 said:

But there is only a very tiny risk of death for a woman in pregnancy. Very tiny, unless there are complications, in which case, it may be OK to abort. If the mother's life is in danger, the Catholic Church, and most other Christians, including ender, agree that abortion is justified.

RicOlie_2 said:

His analogy wasn't perfect, that's true, but let's say that instead of just having to cover his bills, they were required to donate blood for a blood transfusion (a small crossover between both of your analogies). Would they then have the right to just end this man's life?

RicOlie_2 said:

But here's the serious flaw with your analogy:

They had no idea, when they signed up for the study, that the man's condition would come to light and they would be needed. Pregnancy is, on the other hand, a well-known consequence of sex. Accidents are a well-known consequence of drunk driving. In both latter cases, both people knew what could happen. Both involve acts of pleasure that can have life-changing consequences. If anyone decides to drink a lot, or engage in sex, they are accepting the possible consequences.

RicOlie_2 said:

There is a very low risk of death in pregnancy compared to the risk of death in abortion, which is 100% (the victim of course being the fetus/baby/whatever you want to call it/him/her). The reliance in your analogy is a bit exaggerated. The woman in your analogy did not make a choice that caused the man's condition. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman makes a choice that directly leads to it. If she is impregnated and didn't plan on it, she obviously wasn't thinking things through very well and should be prepared to carry the child to term.

RicOlie_2 said:

 Twister, let me be the first to point out that darth_ender's analogy is far better than yours. A woman does not have a high risk of death when she is pregnant, and an abortion is more harmful than giving birth (repeated abortions can result in a damaged uterus, preventing the woman from ever having children again).

RicOlie_2 said:

She can also walk around and perform many activities that someone hooked up to another person would not be able to do. In fact, for the first two/three months of pregnancy, most women have no trouble performing activities they could do before they were pregnant.

RicOlie_2 said:

It is also usually the woman's fault if she is pregnant, since she (in just about every case) consented to sex with a man. In ender's scenario, the man and woman made a choice to drink enough to get drunk, and then drive, causing an accident. In your scenario, there was no choice involved, and it is analogous of a pregnancy that was caused by the woman hugging her boyfriend, immobilized her for all nine months, and had the possibility of killing her.

RicOlie_2 said:

Try again, Twister. I fail to see how your analogy corresponds whatsoever to the realities of pregnancy, and the choice made that begins it.

darth_ender said:

Now let's hypothesize on an analogous train of thought.  Think of a man.  This man, due to the actions of a young male and female having fun with alcohol and a car, is injured and ends up comatose in a hospital bed.  In our little scenario, we have the technology to make a 97% guarantee that this man will not only come out of his coma (in about nine months), but will in fact ultimately make a full recovery, though there is a good chance his memory will be impaired.  But at the present we cannot detect any: a) consciousness; b) evidence of reasoning or significant brain activity; c) self-motivated activity; d) effort to communicate; d) enduring self-concepts.  This man is, according to Ms. Warren, not a person.  He is genetically human, but not a person.  The young couple involved did not have insurance, but because they are at fault in this accident, are required to pay for this man's medical bills and treatment.  However, simply euthanizing him is a cheaper option, and they won't be responsible for the physical therapy that would follow.  You see, when they chose to drink and drive, as fun as it was, they simply weren't ready for the consequences/commitment that might follow such actions.  Thank goodness this man was, at least for a time, a very large but ultimately nothing more than, a bunch of cells.

I suspect you would find horror at this situation.  But fortunately, with only a little more fiddling with the definition of person, you could argue that the man in question also has a history, and thus retains his personhood, whereas a fetus (an unborn, and in early stages unformed, baby) has no history.  But now it really seems like we are creating definitions to suit our own ends rather than simply relying on reality.  Let's look at an analogy of such behavior.

Many <a href="http://www.letusreason.org/Cults1.htm">conservative Christians</a> define the word "cult" to meet their own ends and thus exclude other religions, such as Mormons.  They come up with specific criteria so they make sure they can fit in while other groups do not.  Such does not meet technical definitions of a cult, but since it carries such perjorative weight, they utilize the word according to their own definitions.  I'm in the "in" club, but you're not.  I have the right to be treated with a full amount of respect, and you do not.

It's an identical method of exclusion for convenience.

Lord Haseo said:

No offense, but you seem to live your life based on emotion and preconceived notions instead of logic. That's great for an individual, but we as a species need to cast aside these feeling if we're ever going to move forward. 

It does pertain to the topic seeing as how Ady's work is like cybernetics. They're enhancements. The only thing that is dated about STAR WARS is it's dialogue and some of the visual effects and nothing more. The way in which GL tells his story is no different than any other film (more specifically film series) does. His methods go back to way days of antiquity with myths from many cultures that still evoke the same emotion that they did back then. 

Laserschwert said:

twister111 said:

Another thing is that it would allow for things like proper commentary tracks

Do you really believe that Lucas would do a commentary track for the OOT? ;)

SilverWook said:They could always piece one together from other sources. ;)

DuracellEnergizer said:

Should have just saved it for later. =P

Lord Haseo said:

 It would be nice to own the OUT on Blu-Ray, but I don't see the point when Harmy's Despecialized Editions are on the internet. But to each his own I suppose.

So yesterday-ish I ate while I wasn't too hungry. See I had started out hungry but then whilst I was preparing my food my drink had satisfied that desire. Well I figured it'd be foolish to waste food so while I wasn't very hungry I could still eat. So I ate. Big mistake. Ended up nauseous and headachey since. My body doesn't like that I didn't listen to it and now it rebelling hardcore... Been feeling miserable since I decided to try not to waste food and had to compensate the way I sat or lied down just so that I don't throw up...

WHY!?!?!? I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO WASTE FOOD!!!!!! :( :( :(

Easterhay said:

twister111 said:

Fixing one issue while changing many other aspects of the films right down to re-editing fights for no reason really distracts from the part that was fixed. It's like fixing a crack in the back of a chair but then taking a chainsaw to the legs. Yeah they fixed the crack but the chair isn't exactly in good shape.

You might want to check the thread title again. Plenty of other places to moan about the changes you don't like :)

Leonardo said:

Thanks twist! :)

Easterhay said:

Or has it become de rigeur to just post endlessly about the changes that we don't like? Perhaps that's why the audio cock up with the music during the Death Star battle on the DVD of A New Hope drew so much stick and yet, when Matthew Woods changed it back to how it was originally, there was barely a murmour.

I blame the papers! Appeal to the lowest common denominator by selling bad news and people begin to believe that that's what they want to talk about. The endless negativity is rather wearing, though.

doubleofive said:

SilverWook said:

Anyway, I'm glad Gene kept smoking off the show. It would have dated TOS very badly to see Kirk and company light up on the Enterprise. And this was in an era where even NASA consoles had built in ashtrays!

I made this joke on Twitter after I heard that the advertisers wanted the characters to smoke.

http://twitter.com/TOS_Season4/status/222667325600571394