1561

Arts & Entertainment / Re: First Look at Ben Affleck's Batman

« on: June 10, 2016, 05:55:30 AM »

Wow, that last one might be my new favorite Batman cover ever.

1562

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones

« on: June 07, 2016, 02:24:35 AM »

You're acting like there were only two options for the writers:

a. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then let the rape happen

b. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then at the last minute not let the rape happen even though it makes no sense, confusing the audience

Nobody is arguing in favor of the second option.  It was the writers' decision that Ramsay and Sansa would end up in a bedchamber with him ready to rape her, and if the show was going to avoid depicting a rape, that's a scene they probably would have changed.

I don't think this addresses my question at all, and I'm going to explain why.  You can just as easily argue that GRRM could have avoided all the depictions of Dothraki raping women if he wanted to by not having Dany marry Khal Drogo.  He could have very easily written a nice little story about life in the Middle Ages (I know it's not technically, of course, but Martin is on record as saying that this is what he was specifically trying to evoke) and ignored the fact that rape was a common occurrence in such brutal times, but he chose not to (indeed, not whitewashing history was important to him), and it gave depth to the story. 

So we get to Ramsay and Sansa.  The writers didn't have to marry Sansa off to Ramsay, of course... but it definitely helped to move the story along.  I get the idea that you think Ramsay raping Sansa was gratuitous, but once they made the decision about the marriage, they made it an inevitability.  It would have been toothless and cowardly to pretend that it wasn't happening.  And furthermore, his actions toward Sansa are having definite implications now; just two episodes ago even, when Sansa refused Littlefinger's help for putting her in that position.

So the rape served the story.

And it was therefore not only inevitable, but not in the least gratuitous.

Again, if you are drawing a distinction between GRRM brutally depicting rape in the books and Benioff and Weiss doing it on the show, I'd love to understand where that distinction lies.  I'm not seeing it.

She didn't need to be raped to establish that she was in a shitty situation.  She needed to be raped because Ramsay Bolton is a horrible person, and there's no way he's not going to rape his new bride.  It would not have been true to the character to depict it any other way, and it wouldn't have been fair to the audience to just pretend it wasn't happening.  Not all liberal SJW criticisms of mass media are unfair but this one really is.

Eh, not really. Especially when book Sansa is in the Vale and learning to be a Lady Littlefinger. This whole divergence from the books pissed me off more than anything the show has done.. well except maybe for the Sand Snakes.

Seriously?  I applaud the change more than most that they've made.  Sansa's storyline in the Vale was a real snoozer.  But it sounds to me that your problem isn't so much that they showed a rape (or "one rape too many" as George put it) on the show, but rather that they changed what you apparently considered to be a riveting and compelling storyline.  Which is fair enough, but aim your shots where they belong.

1563

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones

« on: June 06, 2016, 08:13:03 PM »

She didn't need to be raped to establish that she was in a shitty situation.  She needed to be raped because Ramsay Bolton is a horrible person, and there's no way he's not going to rape his new bride.  It would not have been true to the character to depict it any other way, and it wouldn't have been fair to the audience to just pretend it wasn't happening.  Not all liberal SJW criticisms of mass media are unfair but this one really is.

If it seemed inevitable, it's because it was written that way.  The writers were responsible for the events that led up to that moment as well as the moment itself.

I literally don't understand your position. Do you have the same problem with the dozens of depictions of rape in the books, too, or are you making some distinction I'm not seeing? 

Also I think GRRM himself deserves credit for making Ramsay a despicable monster, not the show's writers.

1564

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones

« on: June 06, 2016, 04:04:55 AM »

Sansa was already in deep trouble just by being stuck with the Boltons; she didn't need to be raped to establish that she was in a shitty situation. 

She didn't need to be raped to establish that she was in a shitty situation.  She needed to be raped because Ramsay Bolton is a horrible person, and there's no way he's not going to rape his new bride.  It would not have been true to the character to depict it any other way, and it wouldn't have been fair to the audience to just pretend it wasn't happening.  Not all liberal SJW criticisms of mass media are unfair but this one really is.

1565

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If you can answer these questions with proof, I will become a flat Earther

« on: June 05, 2016, 09:29:43 AM »

OK. The Titanic survivors were all liars

You put far too much stock in anecdotal evidence for someone who is trying to sell himself as scientifically-minded.  Do you have any idea how many different and conflicting eyewitness reports there were after the disaster?  People were cold.  They were disoriented.  They were in shock and many (probably most) had just lost loved ones.  But we are supposed to accept the observation of a few that they saw stars on the horizon as ironclad fact, when they couldn't even agree on whether or not the ship broke into separate pieces before it completely sank.   

Indeed, eyewitness evidence itself (even without extenuating circumstances such as having just taken part in one of the biggest disasters in maritime history) is notoriously unreliable.  So please, if you can't find some real evidence, stop wasting our time, and stop whining that we refuse to accept something as evidence that it is patently ridiculous that we be expected to accept as such.

The Titanic incident was just one example.

One that it was extremely foolish of you to hitch your pony to. I do hope you at least learned something from your silly little flub.

1566

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If you can answer these questions with proof, I will become a flat Earther

« on: June 04, 2016, 09:52:01 PM »

My post was not about that, the photo was an aside.

Fair enough, but it was the photo that they were responding to. And they had a point.

Which is why I asked them to stop and concentrate on my actual point.

If you want to continue pushing the other point of your post, you need to first concede the part that you were wrong about. Otherwise, they will just keep focusing on it.

I already admitted that my photo was a failure. Didn't you read my last post?

So no evidence for the claim after all, then?

 I have seen plenty of photos that have stars on the horizon, but it is often 1 or 2. I want to find something that you will have to work harder to come up with a bad rebuttal for. In the meantime, feel free to deal with the other points being discussed.

OK. The Titanic survivors were all liars

You put far too much stock in anecdotal evidence for someone who is trying to sell himself as scientifically-minded.  Do you have any idea how many different and conflicting eyewitness reports there were after the disaster?  People were cold.  They were disoriented.  They were in shock and many (probably most) had just lost loved ones.  But we are supposed to accept the observation of a few that they saw stars on the horizon as ironclad fact, when they couldn't even agree on whether or not the ship broke into separate pieces before it completely sank.   

Indeed, eyewitness evidence itself (even without extenuating circumstances such as having just taken part in one of the biggest disasters in maritime history) is notoriously unreliable.  So please, if you can't find some real evidence, stop wasting our time, and stop whining that we refuse to accept something as evidence that it is patently ridiculous that we be expected to accept as such.

Patently ridiculous?  Whining?  This is rhetorical drum-beating and not worth a sod.

After the topic was basically dropped, why did gecko feel the need to continue whinging on about the fact that we are calling "all Titanic survivors liars" (an act of intellectual dishonesty on his part, btw, since I sincerely doubt that everyone who survived the disaster actually chimed in on whether there were stars directly on the horizon, but given what follows in the same post that's really no surprise)?  The eyewitness testimonies of the Titanic survivors are actually textbook examples of how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be.  Do you really think it's unreasonable of me to call him out on the fact that he gives anecdotal evidence such credence, given that he's supposed to be on the side that reveres actual scientific results and eschews everything else?

Elsewhere, there were photos that were posted by a FEer that we are expected to accept as evidence. If that is the case, the entire catalogue of photos that show the Earth to be round utterly destroys the FE side.

It does not.  Talk about rhetorical drum-beating. 

1567

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If you can answer these questions with proof, I will become a flat Earther

« on: June 04, 2016, 09:03:40 AM »

OK. The Titanic survivors were all liars

You put far too much stock in anecdotal evidence for someone who is trying to sell himself as scientifically-minded.  Do you have any idea how many different and conflicting eyewitness reports there were after the disaster?  People were cold.  They were disoriented.  They were in shock and many (probably most) had just lost loved ones.  But we are supposed to accept the observation of a few that they saw stars on the horizon as ironclad fact, when they couldn't even agree on whether or not the ship broke into separate pieces before it completely sank.   

Indeed, eyewitness evidence itself (even without extenuating circumstances such as having just taken part in one of the biggest disasters in maritime history) is notoriously unreliable.  So please, if you can't find some real evidence, stop wasting our time, and stop whining that we refuse to accept something as evidence that it is patently ridiculous that we be expected to accept as such.

1568

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones

« on: June 03, 2016, 02:07:23 PM »

Or look deep in her eyes as you say "You know noothing, <insert chick's name>". She'll be putty in your hands, Thork, putty!

1569

Flat Earth Media / Re: What's on the underside of the Earth?

« on: June 03, 2016, 03:25:50 AM »

I'm still fairly convinced it's the Great Turtle.  Otherwise what could have possibly shat out the Earth and farted the heavens? 

1570

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If you can answer these questions with proof, I will become a flat Earther

« on: June 02, 2016, 11:20:55 PM »

The photographer makes extensive use of Photoshop in images from the same gallery. That alone is enough to debunk its usefulness in this debate to me.

Try again REers.

1571

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If you can answer these questions with proof, I will become a flat Earther

« on: June 02, 2016, 12:12:14 AM »

But Tom did supply evidence.  If you are going to claim he's interpreting that evidence wrong don't you think it's only fair to prove it, instead of putting your fingers in your ears and repeating you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong? It shouldn't be hard to find a picture on the internet confirming your point if it's a valid one. Stop being lazy. Debate is a 2-way street.

1572

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Water from cars - check my math

« on: May 26, 2016, 07:05:24 PM »

Read your post again Dave, you clearly use the word damage.

1573

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Reunification Proposal

« on: May 25, 2016, 03:39:56 PM »

For some reason I'm with Thork. I don't want this to happen if the other site's admins have any control over anything important. They've dropped the ball too many times for me to have any real trust in them.

1574

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones

« on: May 25, 2016, 03:34:56 PM »

I'm not gonna lie, I cried. I guess it's partly because it wasn't in the books yet but that death affected me more than most.

1575

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones

« on: May 19, 2016, 04:02:33 AM »

it was

1576

Arts & Entertainment / Re: First Look at Ben Affleck's Batman

« on: May 19, 2016, 02:42:08 AM »

It sounds like good new to me.  Geoff Johns is probably the best mainstream writer DC has right now and he's done good work retooling classic characters (Flash and Green Lantern in particular) without resorting to an unnecessarily dark and gritty tone, which thank heavens DC/Warner Bros really seems to want to veer away from right now.

Anyway, unless Legends of Tomorrow really blows me away with the finale, or at least tosses out a really good cliffhanger, I think the first season of the show will be the last I watch.  It doggedly refuses to make sense and a few of the actors just irritate me.  Kind of a letdown.

They should spin Leonard and Mick off onto their own show.  And send Sara back to Arrow where she can be Black Canary and probably die again.  Not that I want to see it happen but it has to sooner or later; Papa Lance isn't allowed to be happy.

1577

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism is a handicap of the religions

« on: May 14, 2016, 04:58:54 AM »

You are talking as you are a peacefully man but defending as a warrior. This is a contradiction.

How very Christian of him.

1578

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: May 12, 2016, 04:50:09 PM »

Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...

I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty?

And the 2016 Strawman award goes to... ROUNDY! Do you have anything to say to your family and friends after winning this prestigious award?

That is a direct response to Round Fact's statement. I didn't imply any kind of refutation of any argument, merely asked a question. Please learn what a straw man is before throwing around accusations.

1579

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race

« on: May 12, 2016, 03:40:08 PM »

Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...

I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty?

1580

Technology & Information / Re: Thork is getting a Swiss watch

« on: May 11, 2016, 11:10:19 PM »

There's nothing wrong with wanting a nice quality watch.  Saying they are obsolete is ridiculous. I've been wanting a Movado myself for years, I just haven't been ready to shell out the money for it.