prev <-> next
[2004-02-26 11:20:00] - brutal misuse, I might add - vinnie
[2004-02-26 10:29:00] - capalert: Ah, ok. Yes, that does seem to be a misuse of the word "objective". -Paul
[2004-02-26 09:56:00] - *there = this - capalert
[2004-02-26 09:55:00] - There is where the brutal objectivity of the CAP analysis model (the Findings/Scoring section) becomes most valuable. If a scene is violent, the CAP model notes it as such whether "justified" by actual events or not - capalert
[2004-02-26 09:32:00] - Pierce: They claim that they are objective in the review? -Paul
[2004-02-26 00:31:00] - yes. you should be ashamed. you terrible terrible person. ~a
[2004-02-26 00:00:00] - a: i kind of laughed at that too - was that wrong? - aaron
[2004-02-25 22:11:00] - of the death of jesus. I mean, I wasn't expecting a fully rational and well-justified basis for the reviews, but they should really know better than to toot their own horn on objectivity. - pierce
[2004-02-25 22:10:00] - It's interesting (not surprising)... the CAP review of "Passion" makes a big deal out of the "objectivity" that caused them to give it a bad score for violence, but they seem to think it's not offensive to god; which is a completely subjective interpretation. For all they know, god would be pissed off at a theatrical presentation... - pierc
[2004-02-25 20:15:00] - "# murder of our Lord" haha. ~a
[2004-02-25 17:50:00] - /is totally confused. -- Xpovos
[2004-02-25 16:51:00] - when it comes to those ads, yes - vinnie
[2004-02-25 16:47:00] - Vinnie: You're so much like Andrew.
-Paul[2004-02-25 16:41:00] - oh, and because so many people on a board I frequent adore them. my hate has to counterbalance their love etc. - vinnie
[2004-02-25 16:40:00] - well, at least those ads never actively annoyed me. they only annoyed me because every one of those ads was the same - vinnie
[2004-02-25 16:33:00] - i like the vh1 ad with cats singing snoop dogg, but i'm a sucker for cats and i like the song - travis
[2004-02-25 16:26:00] - yes, that's the one. I think he also does dumb ads for vh1 - vinnie
[2004-02-25 15:59:00] - F? -Paul
[2004-02-25 15:55:00] - F - aaron
[2004-02-25 15:55:00] - http://www.rathergood.com/ it's not really loading for me right now, but i'm pretty sure that's the site that started the type of animation seen in the quiznos ads (i say "think" because it won't load for me to double check, but i have been there before) - travis
[2004-02-25 15:50:00] - http://www.capalert.com/capreports/passionofthechrist.htm in case anyone cares what cap thought of the passion (I was curious) - vinnie
[2004-02-25 15:50:00] - i haven't gone there since the ads actually, but I probably will sometime - vinnie
[2004-02-25 15:36:00] - Vinnie: If you cared enough, you would stop going to Quiznos because the money you spend there goes to pay him for those ads.
-Paul[2004-02-25 15:32:00] - grrrr, it makes me hate those ads even more knowing that guy is paid money! - vinnie
[2004-02-25 15:31:00] - god, I knew it! the same guy who makes those retarded kitten flash animations that are inexplicably fawned over! - vinnie
[2004-02-25 15:24:00] - http://slate.msn.com/id/2095868/ Grading the Quiznos ads. -Paul
[2004-02-25 15:18:00] - I blame Vinnie. He's not controversial enough. -Paul
[2004-02-25 15:12:00] - here, it (and all other conversation on the board) just died after pierce left work - travis
[2004-02-25 15:09:00] - Which raging debate, on the message board or on my journal? -Paul
[2004-02-25 15:06:00] - boy, pierce leaving really killed the raging debate - travis
[2004-02-25 14:39:00] - chapelle show is really on/off for me. i loved the "nigger" family skit but i hated the real world spoof (not funny and waaaay too long, it seemed like it was half the episode) - travis
[2004-02-25 14:29:00] - klaus' comment was pretty funny though
- vinnie[2004-02-25 14:27:00] - i actually hated that very long skit. that was like the one funny joke from it, and only in that family guy peter-grabbing-his-knee kind of way - vinnie
[2004-02-25 14:22:00] - Grrr.... too bad I can't watch it at work. Have to wait until I get home I guess. -Paul
[2004-02-25 14:09:00] - rtsp://a1703.v9950f.c9950.g.vr.akamaistream.net/ondemand/7/1703/9950/v001/comedystor.download.akamai.com/9951/chappelle/204_rickjames_300.rm "i'm rick james, bitch" (mainly to help out non-cable paul, so he can understand bball board message) - travis
[2004-02-25 12:37:00] - Pierce: Have a safe trip back home. -Paul
[2004-02-25 12:14:00] - I'm actually going to head home. Here's hoping I don't fall asleep at the wheel. Talk to you guys in a bit. - pierce
[2004-02-25 12:11:00] - I can tell you are all writing responses to my journal.
-Paul[2004-02-25 11:47:00] - Pierce: Well, I guess usually things that obviously make sense (killing off all humans is worse than killing off some) are too interesting. I was just remarking that this makes sense AND I find it interesting. -Paul
[2004-02-25 11:41:00] - Paul: "Makes sense, but I still find it interesting"... are those usually mutually exclusive? - pierce
[2004-02-25 11:39:00] - Right, right, I know they both matter. But from what I'm hearing, six billion people would be less bad if there were 7 billion humans. Makes sense, but I still find it interesting. -Paul
[2004-02-25 11:39:00] - Personally, I think it's irresponsible to let any one person unilaterally control a nuclear weapon, no matter what their political station or their "trustworthiness". I personally see the imminency of the potential for random, spontaneous insanity, factored with the magnitude of a nuclear weapon, as unacceptable. - pierce
[2004-02-25 11:36:00] - Paul: I agree with vinnie... the numbers and the percentages both have relevancy. I was merely pointing out that the percentages do have relevancy. 100% is more than one-percent's-worth of significance when compared to 99%. - pierce
[2004-02-25 11:34:00] - the funny thing is, I think numbers do matter to me. I think I might be willing to stop nuclear weapons to save a million people even if there were like a quadrillion people - vinnie
[2004-02-25 11:34:00] - Vinnie: You have a response in my journal, enjoy. -Paul
[2004-02-25 11:33:00] - I think we've all seen Deep Impact.
-Paul[2004-02-25 11:32:00] - well, and if you weren't on my side, and if there were other factors that led me to believe you might kill us - vinnie
[2004-02-25 11:32:00] - Pierce: I understand what you're saying, but I do think it's interesting that the numbers seem to take a back seat to percentages. -Paul
[2004-02-25 11:32:00] - not as safe as I'd like, though. When it comes down to it, this is a damn small world for the entirety of our race to depend on. It really wouldn't take that much to just poof us out of existence. - pierce
[2004-02-25 11:31:00] - actually, that's not what I was talking about, but you have a good point. I would use force to stop you from having a gun if there were 10 people on earth - vinnie
[2004-02-25 11:30:00] - our race is still pretty safe for the time being - vinnie
[2004-02-25 11:30:00] - there's an extra threat involved in completely eliminating the human race, that would make those last hundred people out of six billion extraordinarily significant. Contrastingly, the last hundred people killed out of the two hundred are essentially equal in significance to the first 100. - pierce
[2004-02-25 11:29:00] - Paul: it has to do with the magnitude of the threat. Killing 5,999,999,900 people out of six billion versus killing six billion out of six billion is a huge difference. Additionally, that analogy taken as a whole compared to killing 100 people versus 200 people (same raw quantity difference) has very different meaning. - pierce
[2004-02-25 11:28:00] - heh, my last example was a poor one. i meant that if the same number of humans existed but were more scattered. nuclear weapons most effective in concentrated areas. it's a matter of numbers really - vinnie
[2004-02-25 11:19:00] - Vinnie: So it has less to do with the number of people dying then it has to do with the extinction of the race? -Paul
[2004-02-25 11:13:00] - or hell, if humans were more scattered throughout space, then I might think nuclear weapons weren't enough of a threat anymore - vinnie
[2004-02-25 11:12:00] - i'd love to able to say "this scenario dictates this action for all time" but that can never be. if someone invented some sort of bomb shelter clothing that made people immune to nuclear bombs, then use of force against those with those weapons might not be justified - vinnie
[2004-02-25 11:10:00] - it's not that easy. it constantly changes - vinnie
[2004-02-25 11:08:00] - At what point is the threat imminent enough to justify pre-emptive action. -Paul
[2004-02-25 11:07:00] - I don't mean to be contrary here, I guess I like being the annoying gadfly and just wondering where you draw lines is all. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:59:00] - thank god I've never had to make that decision is all I have to say
- vinnie[2004-02-25 10:58:00] - no, that's a good point. with that little information (we don't know the likelihood they will be fired, what damage they can do), I would say it's not justified, but then that gets into the point of whether it's justified to get that information. it might be justified to figure out (even illegally) what kind of damage the missiles can do - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:55:00] - Although discussing the journal matter here might work better... -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:54:00] - Nah, I can do two things at once. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:54:00] - Vinnie: I don't mean to be contrary, but what about if a country has missiles aimed at us? Does that mean we are justified in attacking them? -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:53:00] - heh, we can put this argument on hold and start up the other one if you want - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:53:00] - so I don't mind using force against someone that possesses something like that - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:53:00] - Aw, crap. So many questions to answer in my journal. But can't leave the message board.... -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:52:00] - I would agree. but with nuclear devices, there's not really a point where you can see it pointed at you - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:51:00] - Xpovos: Enjoy class, loser.
-Paul[2004-02-25 10:51:00] - Vinnie: Well, I didn't mean to draw the line there even, I only meant to say that it was more justifiable (but still likely morally wrong) in that case. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:50:00] - But I still say that the mere possession of the ability to kill isn't enough to sufficiently justify the use of force against that person in most cases. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:50:00] - Paul: hence the accountability of the person who makes that decision. The incorrect moral judgement can be offset by consequences to the one who made it. - pierce
[2004-02-25 10:49:00] - I hate having to go to class, it means I miss most of these debates -- Xpovos
[2004-02-25 10:49:00] - you're drawing a line to break morals at someone pointing a gun at you. I'm drawing it at someone possessing a nuclear device - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:49:00] - vinnie: you are coherently saying the things that I mean to say. Just so you know, you score a big "amen" here. - pierce
[2004-02-25 10:49:00] - Pierce: Right, so I guess preventative measures can be justified (I used word incorrectly before) but IMHO they are often morally wrong. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:48:00] - So it's not justified to take nuclear weapons out of bush's control because, as much as I dislike the guy, he's not a raving looney with his finger on the button (or at least, not that button). Not an imminent threat = not justified in preventative measures. - pierce
[2004-02-25 10:48:00] - yeah, but what does that have to do with morals? that to me is justification - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:48:00] - stealing in cases is justifable too. again, not morally right, but justifable - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:46:00] - Vinnie: Right, but I'm saying that if somebody is attacking you and shoot him then that is slightly better than just shooting somebody because they own a gun. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:46:00] - that way, even a wrong decision can be somewhat offset by consequences for the person who made the decision. - pierce
[2004-02-25 10:46:00] - justified? certainly. if someone points a gun at you, they will almost certainly shoot you - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:46:00] - Paul: I agree, but as much as I hate to admit it, the idea of preventative measures must be taken into consideration. It's a factor of the imminency of the threat and the magnitude of the threat. But to append that idea, there absolutely must be accountability on the part of the person who initiates such a judgement. - pierce
[2004-02-25 10:45:00] - I could make the argument that stealing might be a good idea for me (if I was good enough not to get caught) but that doesn't make it remotely morally right. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:45:00] - morally defensible? no. you don't know until the moment they pull that trigger that you will be shot at - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:45:00] - All I'm saying is that drawing lines like that does sit well with me. It might end up being a good idea, but I believe that it's often morally wrong. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:44:00] - Vinnie: I think killing in self-defense is a lot more morally defensible than killing out of fear of somebody killing you. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:43:00] - Pierce: Because you could reasonably say that George W. Bush has the ability to end OUR existence as humans so by that rationale, would we be justified in using force to get him to remove that ability? -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:43:00] - yes, I agree, but I think morals break down. killing in self-defense is morally wrong after all - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:42:00] - yes - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:42:00] - Pierce: I don't think it's morally right to use force against somebody because they have the possibility to do something. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:41:00] - whoa! I'm really tired. you guys wrote so much in the time I was writing that comment. Paul: I was referring to the "Essentially you are saying..." comment - pierce
[2004-02-25 10:41:00] - Vinnie: Justifiable for the greater good? -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:41:00] - your gun can kill at best 10. so it's not justifiable to me - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:40:00] - Paul: and what's wrong with that? I think we can all agree that existence should continue... umm... existing, and so the justification of force against a single person by a group trumps the authorization of force against a group by a single person. - pierce
[2004-02-25 10:40:00] - i have tried to justify all the lines I have drawn. a nuclear device can kill millions. to me, it's justifiable to stop that person - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:39:00] - I don't think it's morally right but I do think it's justifiable - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:38:00] - Vinnie: Here's a question for you then. What if there was only one gun in the world and I owned it. You could get rid of guns forever by getting rid of mine (assume no more can be made). I don't want to give it up. Is it right for you to force me to give it up? -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:37:00] - Vinnie: I wasn't saying any specific line needs justification, just that any line that is drawn seems to need justification. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:37:00] - guns are different from nuclear weapons though. they're too widespread to stop. if we get to the point that nuclear weapons are like that, then I think we're probably doomed anyhow - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:36:00] - Is it a good idea? Maybe. But I don't think it's morally right OR justifiable. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:35:00] - Essentially you are saying that it is justified to use force against somebody simply because they possess the ability to end existence. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:35:00] - But it's not so easy as that. Even in the case of somebody who had discovered how to end existence. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:34:00] - no, insurrection has a good point and it never should be an easy decision to make. but nevertheless I think the line should be drawn - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:33:00] - Vinnie: It's not so much a matter of stopping them, it's how you go about doing it. If there was some way to wave a wand and make all guns go away so that nobody had them, then I would be much more sympathetic to the anti-gun lobby. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:32:00] - which line are you referring to that needs justification? the nuclear weapon one? - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:31:00] - probably the hardest parts to get. it's not like it's some easy decision to make, but I do think individual rights end at some time. i mean, if someone had the capacity to stop existence, would you just stand by and let them destroy existence? i don't like drawing lines, but I think they're necessary - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:26:00] - Ten? A thousand? A million? At what point does one more life change it from being worth the sacrifice to not being worth it? -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:25:00] - I am always reminded of a scene from Insurrection where Picard asks some admiral how many lives would have to be ruined to justify creating life saving treatment for others. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:24:00] - Vinnie: I'm not sure, I just find it hard to draw lines like that without some kind of justification. -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:23:00] - Vinnie: Just out of curiosity, how would you try to outlaw nuclear weapons? Ban the parts, the plans, the completed device? -Paul
[2004-02-25 10:21:00] - or on some things but not others? that's fair as well - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:20:00] - well, paul, was my statement true? do you want lines to be drawn or not? - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:19:00] - but let's say something like handguns? I know those aren't dangerous enough to outlaw, so I might fight against that line if the government wanted to ban handguns - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:18:00] - without knowing more, at nuclear weapons. but i'd probably even want less dangerous things than that controlled. I don't know enough about it to reasonably draw the line, so in this case, I don't mind letting others draw it - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:14:00] - Vinnie: Well, kinda. All I asked is where you draw the line.
-Paul[2004-02-25 10:11:00] - or maybe I misinterpreted your post? - vinnie
[2004-02-25 10:11:00] - paul, I still don't understand why you don't think lines should ever be drawn. in an ideal world, no one would ever infringe on anyone else's rights and then people could have complete freedom. but we don't live in that world - vinnie
[2004-02-25 09:51:00] - Vinnie: Where do you draw the line then? -Paul
[2004-02-25 09:46:00] - yeah, I've said before that I have no problem with the government outlawing some things that could be potentially dangerous, or at least controlling them. like nuclear materials. the government still outlaws way more than I think they ought - vinnie
[2004-02-25 09:32:00] - I stand by my ethnic slur. -Paul
[2004-02-25 09:29:00] - Paul: Grad school - pierce
[2004-02-25 09:23:00] - Pierce: They're still in college? What losers.
-Paul[2004-02-25 09:20:00] - Paul: Dan's at Bezerkeley, Morgans at, uh, Stazanford. - pierce
[2004-02-25 09:19:00] - I would've been happy to crash at one of their places and hang out today too. - pierce
[2004-02-25 09:18:00] - Pierce: They are living in California now? -Paul
[2004-02-25 09:15:00] - Paul: I should have taken the day off, though... I hung out with Morgan (Mager) and Dan (Ceperley) while I was out there for a few hours, but it wasn't nearly enough. - pierce
[2004-02-25 09:14:00] - That sucks, go home after your meeting. -Paul
[2004-02-25 09:14:00] - I didn't really RTFA, but I imagine there's a lot of customization being done for corporate clients' sites. And it's not like google is a one-trick pony, they've done a lot of things to add to their functionality ([images|news|groups].google.com) - pierce
[2004-02-25 09:12:00] - Paul: meeting this morning - pierce
[2004-02-25 09:09:00] - http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/google.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set= Long article on google. Anybody else wonder what all the programmers there spend their time doing? -Paul
[2004-02-25 09:08:00] - Pierce: Why didn't you take the day off? -Paul
[2004-02-25 08:50:00] - Ugh. Avoid red-eye flights cross-country if you can avoid them. One hour of sleep and then straight to the office = this weird underwater feeling in my head. - pierce
[2004-02-24 17:36:00] - Travis: 'i guess a better example is the people against gay marriage who say it will lead to incest and polygamy. neither them nor the jews against the passion have any way of knowing those results will occur' I meant in response to that. -Paul
[2004-02-24 17:34:00] - actually i was making a joke in response to your "Obviously everybody is just sitting around waiting for something to spark their innate anti-semitism" comment - travis
[2004-02-24 17:18:00] - Are you trying to lump me in with the Jews protesting the movie?
-Paul[2004-02-24 17:17:00] - Paul: yeah, just look at me
all i needed was to here about the damn bastards complaining about our lord's suffering at their hands to set me into a religious fervor - travis[2004-02-24 17:17:00] - Travis: You've run into one of the primary questions regarding the job of the state there. Should the government outlaw something because it could potentially be dangerous or not? -Paul
[2004-02-24 17:16:00] - i guess a better example is the people against gay marriage who say it will lead to incest and polygamy. neither them nor the jews against the passion have any way of knowing those results will occur - travis
[2004-02-24 17:15:00] - Travis: Obviously everybody is just sitting around waiting for something to spark their innate anti-semitism. -Paul
[2004-02-24 17:14:00] - i know that my statement means we'd have to let something bad happen even though everyone sees it will cause damage (like all of europe ignoring the nazis) but then again it's not like the kkk has taken us over - travis
[2004-02-24 17:13:00] - I'll take more qualified than an amazon any day of the week.
-Paul[2004-02-24 17:11:00] - Paul: i'd say i half defended you, since i said you're more qualified than an amazon (and i had missed vinnie's remark when i posted that) - travis
[2004-02-24 17:10:00] - okay, so now my problem comes with the fact that these people are complaining that the movie will cause widespread anti-semitism, at this point they can only complain that the movie portrays them in a negative light - travis
[2004-02-24 17:09:00] - I was mostly joking there, paul. mostly - vinnie
[2004-02-24 17:09:00] - anyhow, I'm outta here. we'll have our next big ol' fun argument tomorrow - vinnie
[2004-02-24 17:09:00] - Travis: I noticed you defended me, thanks.
I was more remarking to Vinnie. -Paul[2004-02-24 17:04:00] - that's why this is so annoying to argue. these people shouldn't be complaining yet (says subjective me), but only because I doubt doubt doubt it will have much impact. if people wanted to protest a war without actually having experienced living in a country at wartime, they shouldn't have to have the experience to complain - vinnie
[2004-02-24 17:00:00] - but if it's as damaging as they think I think they should! I think it comes down to how much impact will it have - vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:59:00] - Paul: i don't know about the "plenty" part, but i said you had some experience with the offensive material so your complaints have some foundation, unlike an amazon who's never seen a man but hates them anyway - travis
[2004-02-24 16:58:00] - okay, so we agree there, but i still don't think people should organize a boycott of something they haven't seen, it's like how i used to refuse to eat pepperoni on pizza without ever having tried it but once i did i enjoyed it - travis
[2004-02-24 16:57:00] - Without trying to take sides, I think I am plenty qualified to complain about girls. -Paul
[2004-02-24 16:57:00] - Anyway, my point was that the article (IMHO) paints legalizing gay marriage as the mainstream idea and opposing it as some radical far right idea. -Paul
[2004-02-24 16:56:00] - the quarterback thing, helps you actually, because I don't think those people have enough experience to reasonably complain. same with paul and girls
- vinnie[2004-02-24 16:55:00] - ' or 'left' in terms of Democrats. -Paul
[2004-02-24 16:55:00] - ack, there would be "no" reason - vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:55:00] - Travis: Sorry, bad explanation. My point was that the word 'conservative' was mentioned seven times while there was no mention of the word 'liberal
[2004-02-24 16:55:00] - -vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:55:00] - can monday morning quarterbacks who've never stepped foot on a football field have a real opinion on how a player performed? just another thought, not sure if it helps or hurts me - travis
[2004-02-24 16:55:00] - let's put it this way. if the movie was out, I would agree with you 100%. there would be reason why those people shouldn't see the movie to make sure it's offensive to them. but it isn't, so most of them have to go by secondhand. if it's as damaging as they think (and here's where I disagree with them), they have a well-founded reason to complain
[2004-02-24 16:52:00] - yes, but you've had some contact with women. you're not like an amazon who's never seen a man but still thinks they are evil - travis
[2004-02-24 16:51:00] - it's weird with something like a movie because it's so easy to watch a movie. that's why I think news is a better analogy. few people actually see the news happening but people still complain about things that happen and I think rightfully so - vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:51:00] - Paul: i'm confused on what's a conservative and what's a liberal, then. wouldn't Anthony Romero, director of the American Civil Liberties Union be a liberal? is Kerry a conservative? - travis
[2004-02-24 16:51:00] - I complain about women all the time.
-Paul[2004-02-24 16:49:00] - let's just say that I'm not sure you necessarily have to experience something to reasonably complain about it - vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:47:00] - ok, bad phrasing. it's hard to get at what I mean here because I don't really agree that they should be complaining but for other reasons - vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:46:00] - grrr, "well well" should be "are well" - travis
[2004-02-24 16:45:00] - well, they have the right to complain no matter what, but i don't think their complaints well well founded if they haven't seen the movie, heard the music, read the book, etc. - travis
[2004-02-24 16:45:00] - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4360783/ References to conservatives by name, seven. References to liberals by name, zero. -Paul
[2004-02-24 16:40:00] - the issue I'm interested in now is whether someone has a right to complain about something they haven't seen. I said "no" only 20 posts ago, but I may have been wrong - vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:39:00] - oh, and I agree that it certainly won't spur anti-Semitic fervor - vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:37:00] - I mostly agree with you, Travis, because I think people get offended over stupid things, but it seems to me they have more than enough information in this case to complain - vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:36:00] - this statement seems to condradict the "frame of film" one. "'The Passion' came under fire from some Jewish groups who fear the film could fuel anti-Semitism, as [the movie] shows Jewish authorities to be mostly responsible for the crucifixion". one of those two statements is wrong - vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:32:00] - ""'The Passion' will spur anti-Semitic fervor and resurrects the age-old canard of deicide" to me, that's as bad as saying playing GTA3 will make you want to kill people - travis
[2004-02-24 16:30:00] - "Even before anyone saw a frame of film, 'The Passion' came under fire from some Jewish groups who fear the film could fuel anti-Semitism" - travis
[2004-02-24 16:30:00] - btw, I'm backtracking on my previous statement, if you hadn't noticed
- vinnie[2004-02-24 16:30:00] - http://et.tv.yahoo.com/movies/2004/02/24/passionofthechristprotests/ here's the article i read before my initial post on the topic - travis
[2004-02-24 16:29:00] - Travis: They were talking about that on the radio station I listen to also. Funny that the Marlins (who had like 1/5th the payroll) beat the Yankees. -Paul
[2004-02-24 16:27:00] - my guess is that enough people have seen and described it well enough, so that any person could have a pretty good understanding of the tone and context of the movie if they wanted - vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:26:00] - on the radio they were talking about team salaries in baseball, and how teams like the devil rays have a team total of like $25mil while the yankees have like $190mil (these aren't exact numbers, but they were looking at player salary listings on the web) - travis
[2004-02-24 16:26:00] - yeah, but do you have a problem with you complaining on this issue even though you've only heard about it secondhand? maybe whoever you heard this from was a Christian - vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:25:00] - Or how Andrew would describe Brazil as a masterpiece while I call it anti-semitic crap.
-paul[2004-02-24 16:25:00] - haha, "parody" fits so well, maybe even more than "parity" - travis
[2004-02-24 16:24:00] - i'd have a problem with that because the person doing the describing would color the description with his/her own biases (just look at the differences between how andrew and i summed up paul's anti-gay marriage argument) - travis
[2004-02-24 16:23:00] - "Are there more improvements on the way to create more parody in the league's talent distribution?" From a question on ESPN.com chats.
-Paul[2004-02-24 16:20:00] - if the one person described the movie to the others (like, "it has a scene where a jew beats up christ, the obvious hero of the story", for example) then I'm not sure I have a problem about people complaining, even not having seen it - vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:16:00] - so, I'm guessing one of them saw it and told the rest then. and actually, I'm not sure how much of a problem I have with that. I hear about a lot of news second-hand the same way. is it different with something like this? - vinnie
[2004-02-24 16:11:00] - Travis: It's just like Dogma. Some Catholics heard that Kevin Smith was making the movie and started sending him hate mail before they had finished making it (if I recall correctly). -Paul
[2004-02-24 16:05:00] - same thing happens with most offensive material, i think, where someone who's only been told about the material gets up on a soapbox to preach against it using secondhand knowledge - travis
[2004-02-24 16:04:00] - Vinnie: i never actually posted an article or anything, just everything i was saw about the movie included how much jews hate it, and i doubt most of them have seen it yet since only preview audiences have seen it - travis
[2004-02-24 15:46:00] - Vinnie: The Pianist is so obviously anti-naziest that I don't need to see it, I can be outraged without seeing it.
-paul[2004-02-24 15:46:00] - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4362251/ Where the hell does the media get those statistics? -Paul
[2004-02-24 15:43:00] - which makes it doubly silly that these people are complaining about the Passion before they've seen it. it could put judaism in a positive spin for all they know (but almost certainly not). would they complain about the Pianist before that came out, not knowing the angle of the movie? - vinnie
[2004-02-24 15:37:00] - It's interesting that a movie which only depicts historical events (not referring to The Passion here, just a hypothetical movie) could easily be considered anti-semitic even though it's really just reporting facts. -Paul
[2004-02-24 15:35:00] - yeah, sorry, I completely misunderstood your point. perhaps I should've read whatever it was you were talking about in the first place - vinnie
[2004-02-24 15:34:00] - oh, they haven't seen it? then screw them, although if the movie is true to the bible, it probably will be anti-semitic - vinnie
[2004-02-24 15:30:00] - a: Male. Because for some reason we lump women in with minorities. -Paul
[2004-02-24 15:30:00] - Paul: yeah, i already knew that, it's why black people can call each other "nigga" but nobody else can even speak the word, and why everyone can mock whites/men/christians - travis
[2004-02-24 15:29:00] - oh, and i never said good art couldn't be racist or sexist (heck, the godfather example shows that it can), i just don't like the offended people wanting the offending material kept from the public (like the haitians complaining about the "Kill the Haitians" line in Vice City) - travis
[2004-02-24 15:29:00] - which is the majority gender? ~a
[2004-02-24 15:28:00] - As a general rule, you are only able to badmouth your own race/gender/religion/etc or the majority race/gender/religion/etc. Kinda weird, huh? -Paul
[2004-02-24 15:15:00] - i know before ww2 it was just as acceptable to badmouth jews as it was to badmouth any non-white people, but since then i don't think there's been many seriously negative portrayals - travis
[2004-02-24 15:15:00] - Travis: You're right, I guess I'm just tired of having it pounded it to me every day that not all Middle-Easterners are terrorists. Thank you, but not all us white folk are racist either. -Paul
[2004-02-24 15:13:00] - Travis: It's pretty sad that you had to add that you're not trying to be anti-semetic, though, isn't it? -Paul
[2004-02-24 15:13:00] - Paul: well, if those groups do complain vocally, they at least have a history of negative stereotypes to complain about, while the jews are complaining about a single instance after 50 years of non-negative protrayals - travis
[2004-02-24 15:11:00] - i don't hate christians. ~a
[2004-02-24 15:08:00] - it's like ever since ww2, there's been some unwritten law to never say anything bad about jews (i'm actually not trying to be anti-semitic) - travis
[2004-02-24 15:08:00] - I think we hear plenty from middle-easterners and (particularly) blacks about things IMHO. -Paul
[2004-02-24 15:07:00] - i guess i just don't like how vocal they're being about a movie they haven't even seen. so many other groups (middle easterns, blacks, etc) have much more right to complain about their portrayal in the media but we rarely hear from them (i'm sure they still complain but it's never publicized) - travis
[2004-02-24 15:03:00] - it = your guys conversation - vinnie
[2004-02-24 15:02:00] - yeah, I was briefly following it. I've actually been working today! - vinnie
[2004-02-24 15:01:00] - good art can still be racist or sexist (like my ludacris cd in the car
), and people should complain if it offends them. heh, the only reason nazis don't complain about being portrayed negatively is because nazism isn't socially acceptable, unlike judaism - vinnie[2004-02-24 15:00:00] - Vinnie: I blame the gays and their desire to get married, which caused me to remark on it and talk a lot.
-Paul[2004-02-24 14:58:00] - why don't they have a right to complain? I think people like Godfather in spite of the fact that it "perpetuates stereotypes" (in quotes because I don't think it does) - vinnie
[2004-02-24 14:56:00] - god you guys talked a lot. mark cuban was on the cover of that Forbes HDTV issue. he apparently has a ton of money invested in HD cable channels - vinnie
[2004-02-24 14:50:00] - Travis: I assume you're talking about Adrian? I think he would enjoy a movie where Jesus gets tortured and killed, frankly. -Paul
[2004-02-24 14:49:00] - anti-semite? or anti-italian? pro-nazi?
i want mr. "i don't hate christians" to go see that movie - travis[2004-02-24 14:45:00] - Travis: You anti-semite
-Paul[2004-02-24 14:44:00] - "all nazis", not "nazis all", yoda i am not - travis
[2004-02-24 14:43:00] - how come the jews feel like they have a free pass to bash the passion of the christ? doesn't every ww2 movie make nazis all look like horrible people and no one complains? i think the same sort of protests (by italian amerians) went on when godfather first came out and now it's considered one of the best films of all time - travis
[2004-02-24 14:30:00] - Heh, I like that some people have used dynamite to destroy the cameras. Seems like a bit of overkill to me.
-Paul[2004-02-24 14:28:00] - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=4&u=/nm/20040224/od_nm/crime_britain_speeding_dc time to turn that frown upside down
- travis[2004-02-24 14:07:00] - Well, I was waiting for something else to pop up, since it seems like nobody wanted to disagree with me on gay marriage anymore.
-Paul[2004-02-24 14:03:00] - and thus the posting ends - travis
[2004-02-24 13:46:00] - Travis: Mark Cuban is a crazy crazy man. -Paul
[2004-02-24 13:44:00] - "Mark Cuban will host his own reality-TV show where he gives out $1 mil to someone who gets on his 'good side at the right time.'" wtf? - travis
[2004-02-24 13:38:00] - Travis: Perhaps you're right, it just sounded like your version implied that legalizing gay marriages was going to be the cause of people wanting to marry multiple related sheep instead of just having us consider expanding the law to include it. -Paul
[2004-02-24 13:37:00] - s/"was seriously"/"that seriously" - travis
[2004-02-24 13:36:00] - Travis: Hmm, maybe. But there's still room for grey areas. But every grey area I can think of someone will be able to claim as a moral issue (welfare, social security, evironment, etc). My point was that I (for the most part) remove my morals from politics for political issues. Or at least try to. That does make things simpler -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 13:36:00] - Travis: I don't intend to be deliberately inflammatory here, but I think there are plenty of people out there who can and do argue with hard logic. -Paul
[2004-02-24 13:36:00] - Paul: i pretty much stated your argument the same as andrew just did "By extending the legal definition of marriage to include gays, we must naturally consider expanding it to include all other forms of sexual partnership" i just didn't state it was seriously - travis
[2004-02-24 13:34:00] - if you didn't involve morals, there would basically be no politics because no one could argue with hard logic (and i'm not being sarcastic) - travis
[2004-02-24 13:33:00] - Xpovos: I highly doubt Adrian and I were arguing the same thing with respect to gay marriage. -Paul
[2004-02-24 13:31:00] - My question was whether a and Paul had gotten it figured out that they were arguing the same thing? -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 13:30:00] - I claim victory, ala USC -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 13:29:00] - Well, that was easy.
-Paul[2004-02-24 13:28:00] - That's the slippery slope, that we must consider further expansions that we may not morally agree with. Much simpler when you don't have morals involved in politics. -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 13:27:00] - Travis: yes, I abbr. to avoid char-limits. I can't argue against Paul because I agree. By extending the legal definition of marriage to include gays, we must naturally consider expanding it to include all other forms of sexual partnership -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 13:27:00] - Secondly, I think I can appeal to Andrew's sense of history regarding government laws and unintended consequences (income tax, social security number, Texas sodomy law) to illustrate that while my argument may be a slippery slope, it also has the weight of history behind it. -Paul
[2004-02-24 13:26:00] - Travis: He did, did he? Well, firstly he should know that Travis mis-stated my argument. -Paul
[2004-02-24 13:24:00] - Paul: i was joking with that last part, but i also wanna see you two duke it out since andrew just called your logic a slippery slope - travis
[2004-02-24 13:23:00] - Paul: yes, i actually mixed up the numbers anyway since i said "more than one person" then changed it to one relative - travis
[2004-02-24 13:22:00] - Travis: Multiple relatives that happen to be sheep. Don't forget about polygamy. -Paul
[2004-02-24 13:22:00] - does "C o E style" mean "chicken or the egg"? - travis
[2004-02-24 13:21:00] - Xpovos: "Have we ever figured out which came first, C o E style, Marriage as a slippery slope to polygamy, animalism, incest" it was your boy paul that said if we let gays marry, everyone will wanna marry more than one person, preferably a relative that happens to be a sheep
- travis[2004-02-24 13:21:00] - Xpovos: I don't post because typically I agree with what you're saying.
-Paul[2004-02-24 13:19:00] - Xpovos: hehe, well, i only started paying attention again yesterday - travis
[2004-02-24 13:19:00] - Travis: Nope. I'm generally against physical abuse. Don't get me wrong, I believe that children need discipline too so I'm not the type to call child services for spanking your child. -Paul
[2004-02-24 13:18:00] - Travis: I initiate and no on responds. I've gotten maybe 5 responses to my entire previous week's postings. -- Xpovos
prev <-> next