|
|
Post by PoolMan on Mar 9, 2004 19:23:59 GMT -5
The fact of the matter is that the talent quite often have no say as to how their plotlines are going to be played out Hahaha... he called them "talent". |
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Mar 9, 2004 20:25:39 GMT -5
Shh! Lest the 150 IQ hear and crush us all!
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Mar 10, 2004 9:33:01 GMT -5
Just to add my input here, and be annoying as ever. I'm both a utilitarian and a pragmatic (anyone that does not know what those means should not feel bad, I'm just a philosophy dork) and so I believe that whatever brings about the greatest good is the most important thing to do. However, I also believe that that good must be useful, essentially in advancing our position as a species. Thus, (and here comes the rant) I believe that ALL sports are pointless and meaningless and are actually a waste of humanity's resources. It promotes violence by creating two teams that fight against each other, and it promotes violence outside of the arena via the fan's reactions to their team winning or losing. Look it up, there are countless cases of people on both the winning and the losing side causing a ruckuss and destroying property out of excitement. It essentiallly promotes our baser instincts, those that are fuelled by testosterone. I know I'm going to get about 50,000 flames for this, but I'm anti-sports. Part II Civilization as we know it was created by women. Men by their nature biologically wish to breed with as many women as possible to ensure their genes make it into the next generation. They are also violent to prove their "Alpha male" worthiness. As a result, any "civilization" created by man would have been one of polygamy and violence (that latter of which rules out Mormons as being a masculine society). Women biologically want to find one mate to spend the rest of their lives with who can help to gaurd and support their children. Since a man can impregnate a thousand women in a week (I'm lookin at you Mr. Chamberlain) and women can only produce one to 12 children every nine months, they are much more attached to these children and concerned for their safety to ensure that THEIR genes make it into the next generation. Part III What is the result of these biological urges? The fact that we have this instituation known as marriage where you are attached to one mate for life and that we now have more diplomacy than war in the world (meaning most of the time we at least TRY to reason with the other side BEFORE bombing them) proves to me that at some point in our history, women influenced the men and convinced them that it was in their own best interests to create "civilization" as we know it. The estrogen holds the ideals, and the testosterone holds the willpower to make it so. Thus we have the two in an uneasy marriage. Ever since then there has been a constant struggle between both the sexes and the associated chemicals within each of us for dominance. It is this struggle that creates things like militant feminism (testosterone laced women) who promote with brutality a message of estrogen, and pro-wrestling (estrogen laced men) who promote with relatively safe wrestling moves and padded rings a message of testosterone. Part IV (In conclusion) While these are all well and good, I suggest that we stop this struggle between our two sides and see this for what it is, embrace this marriage between our chemicals and use our testosterone to fuel a world filled with estrogen ideals. To do this, we must remove all testosterone ideals (sports, war) that are holding us back from both world peace, and me getting a higher paying job as a computer programmer because the money is not going into building a new stadium instead. ;D Let the flaming commence!  |
|
|
|
Post by FiveMileSmile on Mar 10, 2004 11:07:14 GMT -5
I have no idea what BladeStarr is on about but I'm choosing to believe that in some way it supports my argument, and since I've posted this here now no-one else is allowed to claim that it doesn't because I got here first.
Good one, Bladestarr.
- Rich
Winning arguments through arbitrary logic since 1976
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Mar 10, 2004 11:16:28 GMT -5
Well I just thought what with wrestling being seen as "sports entertainment" and that entire post being about why sports suck.... ah, nevermind. I bow to your arbitrary logic. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Hucklebubba on Mar 10, 2004 11:23:41 GMT -5
Not to impugn your integrity, or be flame-like in the least, but I find it ironic that anti-violence sentiment is coming out of someone who's screennamed after some sort of mythological laser sword. Or perhaps an as-yet-unknown foil for everyone's favorite native american space cowboy. Anyway... ...and use our testosterone to fuel a world filled with estrogen ideals. I briefly considered asking for permission to use this as my sig, but I don't know how well it would go with my Felicia gif. Seriously, this sentence puts a smile on my face every time, and cheers me up when I'm feeling blue. I thank you, from the bottom of my now-pleasantly-toasty heart. On the other hand, I've always harbored a deep-seated antipathy for anything that subscribes to the increasingly popular view that people are merely biological automatons, at the mercy of their own chemicals. But still. Beautiful. |
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Mar 10, 2004 11:41:46 GMT -5
Actually, my name did originally come from my first D&D character, when I played that game 10 years ago. People change over time, and I've actually given the name a new meaning. Blade in this case stands for the sharpness of the blade, as in my razor sharp wit ;D. (right) Starr stands for the wisdom of the stars and wisdom in general. And also, I am a non-violent person but not a pacifist. I've not yet made a word for it, but for example I am opposed to killing people, but not opposed to using rubber bullets to disperse an unruly mob. I am opposed to killing of any sort, but as a pragmatic I realise that some form of force must be used sometimes when all reason fails. This force, however does not need to be permanently damaging. While lethal methods are far easier (think the Dark side of the Force, quicker and easier), that does not make that way the better way.  |
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Mar 10, 2004 11:43:07 GMT -5
By the way I love the tagline under your avatar. It proves to me that I'm not the only person on earth that has seen and loved the Thumb films. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Hucklebubba on Mar 10, 2004 15:04:28 GMT -5
Remember the way Crunchaka smiles after they giggle? The first time I watched that scene, I very nearly laughed up a lung.
And you have to understand, I'm normally stoic as an oak.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Mar 10, 2004 18:37:25 GMT -5
I know what you mean, Crunchy was my favorite character - mostly because of the funny teeth. That film was my least favorite of the bunch though with the Blair Thumb, Frankenthumb and Bat Thumb being my favorites in that order (go Jish!). I'm a devoted Oedekerk fan now, because of those films and Kung Pow. Also, no one does an audio commentary quite like Steve and his buddies. It is not dry and boring like most directors, it's more like he's your buddy watching it for fun along with you. It also shows that he really loves what he's doing! And of course we all know that's the most important thing. I get the same feeling (albeit on a slightly more moderate scale) listening to the audio commentary on the Evil Dead films.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Mar 10, 2004 19:17:32 GMT -5
And not to keep this thread completely off topic, Steve and the O Entertainment gang are now working on two new Thumb films: the Thumbatrix (not so interesting) and WTW: World Thumb Wrestling (oooo yeah!) You can see the teaser trailers at the URL below in the bottom left corner of the page. The WTW Trailer is one of the funniest things I've seen since I last put in the Blair Thumb ;D www.oentertainment.com/OClips/Thumb/thumbclips.htm |
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Mar 19, 2004 12:47:10 GMT -5
Don't take this as a flame, I just have an urge to argue:
Not true. In harsh environments it is necessary for the survival of all to create a society above the pride level. Humans wouldn't get very far hunting solo in the ice age; they would have to band together. This isn't just in the frozen wastes either, but anywhere there is competition for some (usually vital) resource.
It's an interesting definition of "prove" whereby something can be proven with both the frame of reference and the evidence as fluid as this, and what's more being built on the assumption that human behavior can be predicted in the same manner as crystal formation. Suffice my position to say that you don't need ovaries to see the benefits of avoiding war.
I thought the record was nine.
First off, good luck getting rid of war. They tried it after WWI, and you can see how well that worked out. As for sports, while I'm no fan of them, I would never try to ban them. Mostly because people enjoy it and they will keep doing it no matter what the government says, but mostly because they let people blow off steam. Mailboxes can be replaced, streetlights repaired, traffic detoured, but the occasional sports riot is nothing compared to what could happen without sports as a release.
I usually say I'm the "most violent pascifist in the world." But then I have a different view than you...rubber bullets and other less-than-lethal weapons are good in my book, and if anyone ever attacks me on the street I'll fight them until one of us is dead or unconscious, but I'm also for the death penalty and a good number of other violent things (depending on the circumstances).
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Mar 19, 2004 19:48:43 GMT -5
Alrighty, good to see you resurrected a dead thread Doc... bored a bit? Anyways, lets get to the meat of this.
Very true, however, I would say that we often do things out of necessity that we would not otherwise WANT to do. the male sex by its nature does not WANT civilization as we know it, however it was necessary, and so we adjusted, just as it is still necessary today so we will continue to adjust more and more in that direction.
Could this have been your aforementioned Ice Age? ;D Anyway, it is true that you do not need to have ovaries to see the advantage of war, but I would also add to my argument my belief as well that intelligence in the human species has given us the opportunity to see beyond the limits originally set by mother nature in our horomones and has allowed us to change many things that should have been changed a long time ago (as well as unfortunately giving us the ability to change some things we should have never messed with).
I was just taking what I thought was a reasonable guess here.
Okay, I'll give you that much, I would agree that sports is better than say war, but should we stop pushing there? What I am suggesting here is to phase out sports while at the same time conditioning future generations to not HAVE to "blow off steam". To paraphrase Yoda, fear leads to anger, anger leads to suffering. If we can somehow take away the fear (via better education both in the secular and the moral sense) then we can stop the chain that leads to violence, and by proxy, leads to the need for sports. I imagine a world where we can have a disagreement without ever letting it become physically violent, and sports is okay to pacify people for the time being but I really think it also needs to be phased out.
I think I will dub my term Utilitarian Pacifism. In this new creation of mine, force can be used if necessary, but the use of what I consider violent force is forbidden. When I say violent force, I mean force that can cause physical damage to someone's body. So for example, rubber bullets are good because they may leave a bruise, but that is something that can heal without serious medical attention. And so on, and so on.
As far as the death penalty goes, that is related to my belief system. I am an agnostic, which means I do not see enough evidence on either side of the argument to decide whether or not I believe in a God. However, if I was to believe in a God, that God would have to be "perfectly good" as I define that term. Now the most common criticism that I get from this is "how can you limit God with your own human ideals" to which I reply "simple, it is my choice what I want to believe, and if I am going to believe, I want to believe in what I perceive to be the best belief. In this case, I would believe in a God that could never harm a single thing. This means no Heaven and Hell. It means a God that does not punish us for our sins but instead has infinite patience and time to teach even the most horribly evil individual how to be good.
And so this ideal translated to my moral beliefs. I believe we should try to be as "perfectly good" as possible. This means that we capture and detain evil people and hold them, trying to show them the error of their ways and how to be good. This does not go so far as to promote brainwashing of any form, because to be a truly good person you have to choose it. I believe that humans are neither good nor evil by nature, and that they always have the ability to change. It may take the rest of their lives or longer, but you can change people for the better. This is why I don't support the death penalty. Because if (a) there is no God and no afterlife, then you are taking away someone's chance to change and to live the most joyful, meaningful and prosperous life that they could or if (b) there is a God, then you prematurely take away this person's chance to change who they are and to avoid a final judgement by the ultimate judge. Either way you are not giving them the chance or the resources to change for the better.
NEXT! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Mar 19, 2004 22:06:41 GMT -5
Why am I having flashbacks to Donnie Darko? Anyway, I don't think there is any way you can eliminate the need to blow off steam. All you can do is shift it to another method, but some kind of physical activity will always be a popular option.
You have that now. The vast majority of disagreements never come to blows.
Rubber bullets can cause a lot of damage if you're hit in a soft spot (eyes especially).
I guess my view on things is different from yours in that I don't ban extreme violence, but there has to be a good reason for it. Not like some people I know who--and I say this without exaggeration--demand to fight whenever they feel they're losing an argument. I'm usually inclined to take them up on it just to help rid the world of that kind of person, but I always decide against it.
As for the death penalty bit, our belief systems seem diametrically opposed, so that argument would get waaay more complicated than I'm prepared to get right now. But hey, at least I'm one post closer to winning that contest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hucklebubba on Mar 20, 2004 2:40:16 GMT -5
The first time I read this, I thought it was intended to mean that women can give birth a maximum of once every three weeks.
And theeennn....
Tee-hee! I'm being impish!
At the risk of cultivating a stereotype I've never been particularly fond of, (Some stereotypes I really like.) I submit to you that we would end up as an entire civilization of repressed parochial schoolgirls.
Me, I've always been fond of those beanbag-firing shotguns. (They're called "Flex-Batons" according to a cop friend of mine. And yet, they're neither flex, nor particularly baton. Discuss.) I mean, come on. It fires a bean bag for crying out loud! This is both endearing and farcical: "Here's the dangerous serial killer, and here's the bean bag that took him down."
Too bad bean bags make such an aerodynamically horrible projectile.
Ye still got to get by me, laddy.
|
|
