Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Roundy

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 78  Next >
why should anyone be afraid of aliens when they most liklley are not real, we have no evidence anything lives on another place besides earth.

That's my point. Speculation about aliens amounts to science fiction until we see some kind of concrete evidence that they even exist; it is fantasy. I'm not any more concerned about aliens than I am about other fantasy creatures that we don't have evidence exist like vampires or werewolves or God.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 24, 2021, 03:22:23 PM »

Apparently even Sidney Powell herself thinks you're a moron for buying into her obvious lies, Tom!


Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: March 16, 2021, 04:45:24 AM »
I doubt it. Justice League's biggest problem was always that it began life as a Zack Snyder movie. It's hard to imagine something more boring than four solid hours of his aesthetic.

It'll almost certainly be better than the mess that was released theatrically but that's such a low bar.

And yet I'll probably watch it. Or at least try to.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: March 13, 2021, 02:14:15 AM »
They wanted you to believe, as Wanda did, that this was somehow really her brother. What better way than by casting Peters? Yes it's a tease, but it's an artful, clever tease.

But nobody thought that this was really Wanda's brother, because he was clearly the X-Men Pietro and not the MCU Pietro. I don't think even Wanda actually believed he was her brother. By that point in the show, she had begun to accept the artificial nature of her world and her role in creating it. I'm not sure what sense it even makes in-universe that Agatha had to go with a "recast" of Pietro, anyway. She could use magic to control this guy and give him super speed, but couldn't make him look like the actual Pietro? Even though we see her change her appearance, showing that she's perfectly capable of that kind of magic?

I think Wanda was willing to accept it, though, at least at first. She was distraught and confused and by that point already fairly exhausted, I think she was willing to believe anything. I might, again, have to rewatch for context, but I don't think it was until he really started acting like a dick that Wanda was even actively questioning it. And certainly anyone who bought into the theory that he was the X-Men's Pietro
at least believed he was actually Pietro, even if they knew it was not *actually* this Wanda's Pietro. You're just nitpicking about the lack of a glamour to make him look like Wanda's Pietro. I'm willing to justify it by just figuring Agatha was really only doing it to keep Wanda off-balance, so it didn't matter to her if he looked like Pietro and may have actually worked in her favor that he didn't. Why not?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: March 12, 2021, 04:19:22 AM »
And round and round we go!

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: March 12, 2021, 04:11:16 AM »
WandaVision, particularly the finale. Unmarked spoilers ahead so don't read if you haven't watched it, in which case what's wrong with you?

I loved the Fietro fake-out. For some reason I never really bought that Evan Peters was going to turn out to be X-Men's Pietro. Maybe it seemed like it would seem so obvious that it felt like a feint. I don't know. It was tantalizing when he showed up, but I never thought it felt right. There's almost something meta about it; Agatha created him to manipulate Wanda, and it's certainly a reasonable argument that the creators used the actor to manipulate the audience, and pretty much to the same purpose as Agatha did with Wanda. They wanted you to believe, as Wanda did, that this was somehow really her brother. What better way than by casting Peters? Yes it's a tease, but it's an artful, clever tease. At any rate at least it's a good dick joke.

Wait a minute. Bohner... Peters... Pietro...


There were two major issues I had with the finale. One was Monica's reaction to Wanda. Putting her on a pedestal, hero worshipping her, because she released the town. After having enslaved it in horrifying fashion in the first place... I get that it wasn't intentional, but Wanda went mad with grief, literally. With that, and her possession of the Darkhold, it feels like they're setting her up as a villain. Which will probably end up being another fake-out, but I hope they explore this hero/villain duality throughout the course of Phase 4. I hope that after having developed Wanda so thoroughly and beautifully they don't just tie this storyline up with a bow in the next Dr Strange movie.

And Hayward ending up being viewed as a criminal... I get that he was basically a mustache-twirling villain to the audience, but I feel like I have to watch it again to figure out if it makes sense that it's treated like he literally broke the law in the end.

I also thought it was weird how underused Darcy was in the final episode, but that's a really minor quibble. I did love both Kat Dennings and Randall Park in this. More great meta-casting, in my opinion, using two of the MCU's resident sitcom stars as snarky observers of the series.

The emotional scenes in the last two episodes were top-notch. Wanda and Vision putting the kids to bed, Vision disappearing with the house... the scene where Vision is comforting Wanda after Pietro's death... there was a lot that was really beautiful about this show. And it was extremely well-acted. I think Olsen, Bettany, and Hahn all deserve Emmy nods for this, and given how popular the show was, I don't even think it's unreasonable to expect it.

And both the thoughtful ending to Vision and White Vision's battle, and the more standard ending to Wanda and Agatha's battle, were pretty epic. The runes were a perfect call- back, and you really don't expect something like the Ship of Theseus to come up in a typical TV show. It brought me back to The Good Place and it's emphasis on philosophy, particularly the episode "The Trolley Problem".

All in all I thought it was a satisfying, if flawed, ending to an amazing series. I'd love to see Marvel do more thoughtful and offbeat stuff like this in the future.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: March 11, 2021, 05:02:11 AM »
You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.

Quote from: Снупс
That's literally what many of us have been saying.

Where was it argued that I was mistaken about what Biden did?

You were mistaken that anybody you are arguing with finds the things you say are embarrassing about Biden embarrassing about him. And that has been pointed out many times.

I'm starting to worry, I feel like your rhetorical prowess used to be much better. Now you just seem to argue in endless circles, flat-out ignoring even the things that you're responding to. It's gotten sad.  :(

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: March 11, 2021, 03:07:19 AM »
What? If I don't think it's embarrassing, justifying it doesn't mean I think it's embarrassing. You're trying to be weirdly tautological. Unless you're legit trying to tell me that any time anyone justifies anything (which, quick refresher, means "show or prove to be right or reasonable") that means the thing is bad or embarrassing. So, say, all your justifications for not murdering someone would be irrelevant because justifying it means it's bad or embarrassing.

If you were in a position that you had to justify that you didn't murder someone you are conceding that there is a reason for that you needed to justify that. You are conceding that there is evidence that you did, or that it looks like you did. No one needs to justify that they didn't murder someone if there was nothing there suggesting that they murdered someone.

Or the accuser is incorrect.

You guys didn't even argue that your opponents were mistaken about what Biden did.

Sure they did. They told you over and over again that they don't find Biden an embarrassment. They may have compared him to Trump at a point but that was to expose your hypocrisy, not to make an excuse for Biden. That Trump was such an embarrassment is irrelevant to the point that Biden is not.

At this point you're the only one trying to make this about Trump.   ::)

Now back to the top of the circle...

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: March 10, 2021, 02:03:08 PM »
I just think it's refreshing having a president that isn't obsessed with his own celebrity.
Since when?

Why, since we lost the game show host who used to be our president, obviously.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: March 09, 2021, 02:03:55 AM »
I just think it's refreshing having a president that isn't obsessed with his own celebrity.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: new to this
« on: March 04, 2021, 05:35:25 AM »
Just the earth. The earth is special. Everyone would agree ... it is the only place in the universe that we have found that supports complex life. Maybe being flat is a prerequisite for life?

The other planets are actually planets. The earth is not. Planet comes from the Greek meaning 'wandering star'. The earth is just the earth. Flat and unique.

So then what do you say to the photos of earth we have from space? They show it’s a ball just like the photos of the moon and Mars show that they are balls.

You should at least familiarize yourself with the basics before you dive in. This is FET's most well-known concept, the World Famous ConspiracyTM, so there's really no excuse for such breathtaking ignorance.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 01, 2021, 04:52:56 PM »

They know who their constituents are. Party of Trump = Party of White Supremacy. The dog whistles are sirens now.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld link=topic de=16615.msg233004#msg233004 date=1614165509
Innocent people don't refuse to obey subpoenas by the Senate and risk arrest
Do they go to court to try and stop their tax returns being released? :)

Ooh, we're about to find out!   :D

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 23, 2021, 10:30:46 PM »

Trump is the gift that just keeps giving. The man who tried to use his DOJ to investigate his political opponents is now crying that he's the victim of political persecution. I just... I just can't even anymore.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 22, 2021, 03:56:10 PM »

This is so sad. The once great GOP, forced to kowtow to the whims of a crybaby manchild, because it's core constituency is just too dumb to see what a mistake that is.

There's an irony, though. For decades the GOP has depended on the stupidity and naivete of its base to keep it in power while continuously screwing them over by putting policies in place that hurt them while propping up the rich. Now I feel like that very dependance on idiocy has put them in a vise grip that they can't escape.

Honestly looking from the other side it's a pretty entertaining shitshow. I don't know if it will help Democrats in the midterms or not (they seem pretty divided right now as well), but at least the Republicans are giving us something to amuse ourselves with in the time being.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: new to this
« on: February 19, 2021, 05:06:11 PM »
Maybe being flat is a prerequisite for life?

Of course. Living things would just fall off of Mars. Have you ever tried walking on one of those big air-filled balls? It can be done but sooner or later you're gonna fall off.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 19, 2021, 12:10:46 AM »
Any comrade of Trump's is a comrade of Tom's.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 18, 2021, 11:09:15 PM »
I mean, gee though, imagine, Russia is trying to undermine our government, shocker.

Does the Riemann zeta function have its zeros only at the negative even integers and complex numbers with real part 1/2?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: categories of truth
« on: February 16, 2021, 07:45:43 PM »
Sorry if I misattributed, I may have read another response re how easy it is to prove FE, and I acknowledge you did not even say FE.

Re my categories, in your first response you are right but I was not complete. A more complete definition:

#1 things known to people of different cultures through independent and repeatable verification, things which can be measured, testable.

#2 Things that are not measurable or repeatable or would not be true for most cultures.

Another way to say it is #1 - scientific method works, #2 scientific method either can't be applied of fails to prove.

Ask a Christian and a Hindu what temperature water boils at sea level. Then ask them if Jesus is the Risen Son of God.

That's what I meant originally. It is sometimes hard to make sure your words are not misconstrued without becoming wordy and obscure in the process.

Did God send hurricanes to Orlando Fl because Disney let gays in as famous preacher said and millions believe? No way to tell. Does water boil at 210 degrees? We can measure that and agree uncontroversially.

There are a billion people who think Shiva and Vishnu created the earth and have since at least the time of the Bible. A billion who believe in the Koran version. What relative truth values do I assign to these mutually exclusive possibilities? Perhaps majority vote, and so the Christuian church is true? Conflicting facts simultaneously true? Or the majority of people on earth holding completely imaginary and untrue belief?

If religion makes a claim that does not impact the physical world, we can't share any confirmation, just someone insisting they know something about God. If religion makes a claim that does impact the real world such that multiple independent people can verify repeatedly and shareably, then it isn't religion, it is science or history.

You can argue "what is truth" all day, no resolution. Better to discuss what can be in category 1 and 2, what that means. You obviously want to put religion in category 1 because you understand the implications of category 2.

Youe post:

When I say shareably, I mean you can't show others the vision of Jesus you had, I do not mean you are in the same room when you read a text.

"Religion has long been a place where a person's accepted conventional facts were first taught to them" - So what does the fact that for hundreds of years, millions of children have learned that Muhammed talked to ants mean? Did that happen?It is beyond the ability of a team of a Hindu, a Christan, a Buddhist, an atheist, and a zoroastrian to examine the evidence.

I am not talking about whether the people get information they believe is true. That they do. I am not even talking about what is true. I am talking about the difference between physics and religion. What it means to be "true" is different. I am pointing out that when you use the same word for true re F=MA and Jesus is Lord, you are talking about two very different ways of knowing with different charactreristics.

Would be interesting to see a religion with proof as convincing to all as physics and chemistry are (know anyone who think water is not H2O?). But then would it be religion?
If you expect me to agree that water boils at 210, I am sorry.

I refuse.

But if the water is at 210 Celsius, it will be boiling... he didn't specify the scale.

Which just goes to show, even "uncontroversial" truths have their layers. Nothing is absolute.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 78  Next >