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: [1] 2 3 ... 94  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Aliens!
« on: June 09, 2023, 08:25:49 PM »
I want to hook up with a space babe as much as anyone but there are no aliens.
There's no such thing as an 'earth-like' planet.
All the data we have about exoplanets shows our cosmos is an inhospitable sewer. The Drake equation with solve showing one civilization per galaxy.

Aliens aren't real but they do make awesome clickbait

This is just 21st century geocentrism.

Really until we've actually seen some kind of proof they exist aliens are nothing better than speculative fiction.

2
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: June 08, 2023, 03:49:38 AM »
Rama Set's account suicide has led to this thread growing drastically lonelier. :( But I'll still post here from time to time, even if I'm just talking to myself. Zack Snyder has once more popped up in capeshit news by talking about his vision of the DCEU, and he's as dumb and pretentious as ever:

https://thedirect.com/article/zack-snyder-batman-v-superman-negative-reception

Quote
I think, and maybe I’m wrong. but I feel like a lot of people went into the movies for going like, ‘Oh, it’s the superhero romp, right? Let’s have fun with it.’ And we gave them this sort of hardcore deconstructivist, heavily layered, experiential modern mythological superhero movie that needs…that you really need to pay attention to. That was not cool [for them]. That’s not something anyone wanted to do. They were like, ‘What? No! That’s exhausting. How about, why do they fight at night?’ I hate that.

To hear Snyder and his fans talk, you would think that nobody other than him has ever tried to make a capeshit movie that had some ambition behind it and wasn't pure escapism. The Dark Knight did pretty well at that, didn't it? So did Logan, released just a year after BvS, and most recently, we've had The Batman. It's almost as if audiences aren't automatically hostile towards ambitious and thoughtful capeshit, but simply dislike movies that are poorly written and directed.

"The world just wasn't ready for my genius!" Lol, what a douchebag.

Did he forget that he had already made a cerebral deconstruction of superhero stories that was at least moderately successful (hello, Watchmen anybody)? And even that paled in comparison with the source material. The guy's not good with the self-reflection, is he?

His problem wasn't that the movies were too smart (Martha, lol, how cerebral), it was that he had the tone all wrong. Batman does not wantonly murder people. Superman does not have a permanent scowl on his face. He had no respect for the characters as they have been established. That's why his movies sucked. I mean, that and the fact that they were boring and poorly written. Does he really think that including an extended commercial for Justice League in the middle of BvS was cerebral? Or in any way compelling?

When his big inspiration The Dark Knight Returns came out it was breaking down decades of tropes. It was legitimately shocking, and that's why it worked. Maybe, like, build up a universe before trying to deconstruct it?

Seriously, fuck Zack Snyder.

P.S. By the way, a "fun superhero romp" should have been exactly what DC wanted and expected. They were trying to compete with the MCU. I'm not saying it had to be a carbon copy but they should have at least been striving to make fun popcorn flicks. The few DC projects that have worked so far worked because they weren't all dour and brooding. I sincerely hope James Gunn and Peter Safran can right the ship.

3
The problem with defending this LGBT propaganda and sexual content is that the counter-arguments assume that the children are as rational as adults. Children are not adults. They are not capable or rational thought or deep introspection. Hypersexualizing children and indoctrinating them with LGBT propaganda clearly affects them. Today children are taught with fun and colorful imagery at a young age that being gay makes you super special, and is a matter of celebration.

Again, this idea that children are being hypersexualized as a result of the agenda is false. You just cherry-pick the most extreme examples that you can find and represent them as mainstream (a gimmick the Right has been using since before Rush's heyday) which they most definitely are not.

If children are being taught with "fun and colorful imagery" that it's okay to be gay (not that being gay makes you super-special, again that's clearly not happening in any kind of mainstream context), it's because fun and colorful imagery is what children respond to. It's not evidence of some nefarious plot to make more gay people. What a silly and absurd notion.

And really, a child's lack of intellectual development has nothing to do with this. Again you are under the weird impression that people make a conscious choice to be gay. That doesn't happen. In my generation it often wasn't wanted and led to shame and hiding, even misguided and futile attempts to change. Thank God the LGBTQ agenda is finally showing results that suggest it's fixing that.

4
Yes, it is a mainstream phenomena. There is a mainstream phenomena which has built up and has resulted in 20% of Gen Z claiming to be LGBTQ.



Here is another source with similar figures: Poll: Nearly 20% of Gen Z say they identify as LGBTQ - "When Gallup broke down the results to other age groups, the rate of LGBTQ identification was 11.2% among millennials and 3.3% or less among older generations."

Tom, I never said that the LGBTQ agenda isn't mainstream, I said that teachers showing their students various anal sex techniques, or how to pleasure themselves with a carrot (make sure the end is smoothed down and not pointy, for example), isn't mainstream.

What you're showing here is not an indication that more people are turning gay, it's an indication that people are getting more comfortable with who they really are. It's a sign that LGBTQ people feel more accepted. Which is exactly what the agenda is trying to accomplish.

The idea that the kinds of things the Left is doing to increase acceptance is actively making kids gay or want to be another gender is patently absurd, not borne out by the evidence, and exactly the kind of demonizing that your people have pushed for centuries, and led to the necessity of the LGBTQ agenda.

Y'all brought this on yourselves, sorry to say.  :(

5
Is there a LGBTQ agenda? Sure. There is an agenda to be more accepted in society, and it's a direct response to the other side's anti-LGBTQ agenda, which has existed for centuries. If it wasn't for certain people working to demonize gay bi trans and queer people and systematically working to take away our rights as human beings it wouldn't be necessary and it wouldn't exist. If some groups have taken it too far that's a shame but obviously Tom's cherry-picked examples don't represent the mainstream.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 04, 2023, 12:01:55 AM »
Trump just can't stop whining.

Yeah, he's the world's oldest crybaby.

7
Kids should learn about sex the traditional way, by stealing pornographic print media and hiding it under their bed.

Ok boomer. Nowadays any kid can learn about any kind of sex act they want to with a quick Google search and some tissues handy.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 21, 2023, 05:52:36 PM »
They put homosexuals in jail

Homosexuality has been legal in Russia since 1993. Very accurate information from you, just like everything you say...

But since I'm willing to bet any amount that you weren't even alive back then, I'll give you a pass on that one.

Right, absolutely no changes whatsoever have been made regarding LGBTQ+ rights in Russia since 1993. It is like a rainbow colored, disco dancing paradise for the gays right now.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 18, 2023, 09:46:29 PM »
If Trump wins the nomination then I wonder who he will choose as his running mate. His supporters tried to hang Pence, so I think we can be reasonably certain he won't be the choice for 2024.
He'll choose one of his kids.  Easy to control. And they've already been in the white house.

Don't count out MTG. That chick is sharp, she's going places.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 14, 2023, 09:27:54 PM »
There are several ways it can be dismissed. It can be dismissed based on sufficiency of the evidence:

https://www.spolinlaw.com/new-york/grounds-for-appealing-a-conviction-in-new-york/

Grounds for Appealing a Conviction in New York — A Top NY Appeals Lawyer Explains

"- Sufficiency of the evidence. To support a conviction for an offense, legally sufficient evidence must exist.

We're not talking about a conviction, Tom.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 14, 2023, 12:38:40 AM »
I hate to bring out the no true Scotsman, but are there seriously flat-earthers who are Trump supporters, or is it a joke like this?.

There probably are (they're still out there!) but judging what Tom in particular really thinks is impossible because his primary motive for posting everything he posts is to take the contrarian POV and watch the sparks fly.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 12, 2023, 08:21:31 PM »
You're never going to find the "perfect" rape victim whose every action seems entirely sound and natural from a detached perspective. A determined skeptic will always be able to find at least something that seems odd about their behavior, whether it be them laughing about it, joking about it, going out with friends shortly afterwards, going on a date shortly afterwards, and so on. Everyone processes that kind of experience differently.

Every lawyer defending a rapist knows this and works it. It's a standard defense tactic to attack the victim.


Actually, attacking the victim works in a lot of criminal defense cases.

To be fair, it would be a disservice to their clients if they didn't work it, to some degree. I still think that a better, maybe more sympathetic lawyer and a more tight-lipped deposition could have won Trump the case.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 12, 2023, 05:25:17 PM »


What rape victim doesn't victim fantasize about their rapist?

She said she did it because it's better to laugh than cry. Seems reasonable to me tbh

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 10, 2023, 04:16:00 PM »
It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.
Dude. Take a breath.
If Trump had been completely exonerated you'd be championing it as a proof of the vindication of an innocent man.
He's lost 8 out of 10 counts and it's an "activist court or judge".
Maybe it's time to consider that Trump might not be the messiah and may in fact be a very naughty boy.

Did you bother to read those points you are championing? They don't work towards the rapist narrative. Seven of them are clearly talking about things that took place in the present, such as things that were published in 2022. It's debatable on whether the one about sexual abuse is talking about the present or past.

The main point in contention on the rape claim was rape, not the seven points of defamation and injury to reputation. The jury has decided that Trump is absolved of the rape accusations. They listened to her department store rape story and tossed it.

It's ok that you're so confused, I was at first too. They did not toss her department store rape story. The issue was that what she accused him of doing isn't legally rape in New York (even though it is just about everywhere else). They decided that her story holds up, but it's considered sexual assault, not rape. They didn't "toss" anything.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 07, 2023, 06:06:58 PM »
The entire Trump "rape case" is a national embarrassment. An enormous piece of the American pie now has a terminal case of grasping at straws. Some old woman says Trump raped her. That's it. That's all she has. She says it happened. I could say Trump raped me and I would have precisely the same amount of evidence that she has. Then if Trump says "no, I didn't" I can sue him for defaming my very valuable name! I will now sue him!

The sad fact is that people want what this woman says to be true. They don't care how much or how little evidence she has. They just want Trump to have to give her money because it would embarrass him. I would say that people want to be able to call him a rapist, but they'll do that regardless of the outcome of the case. It's making a mockery of the American court system. As Mitch McConnell has warned these sorts of people before: you'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.

I mean, to be fair about the idea of people calling him a rapist, he's literally been recorded saying that he's sexually assaulted women. As he repeated in the deposition, it's something that as a rich celebrity he thinks he's entitled to, so it seems like a fair assessment. Other than that, I (shockingly) agree with you.

16
I don't see the point. It seems like a huge expense (you're not as successful at claiming that ten thousand dollars is chump change as you think you are) only to demonstrate something that's not really inconsistent with FET anyway. At best it shows that the Earth might actually be round, but it lacks the immediacy that observing the Earth from ground level affords.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 07, 2023, 02:42:43 PM »
Given Trump's record of not being able to filter what comes out of his mouth, I'd think that defamation would be pretty much a slam dunk.

In this case though? All he really did was say that she lied when she said he raped her, and that she's not his type. He's defending himself. I feel like he has a better claim at defamation here than she does, tbh.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 07, 2023, 02:10:53 PM »
Well that deposition might change things lol. I don't know what his chances of losing were before but I think they at least went up after that shit show.

Why? What's actually changed? We've known that Trump is a sleazy creep for decades, and even if we take into account the numerous Trump fans who are apparently entirely ignorant of how their idol spent the eighties and nineties, he's still publicly demonstrated what a foul person he is many times over the past several years. If his fans didn't care then, then they won't care now.

I mean, it might not. It really doesn't change the fact that Carroll has no actual evidence of rape and no real grounds to claim defamation under the circumstances. It's just that whenever all someone has to do is keep his head down and answer the questions as simply as possible, and instead does... that... he can really only hurt his chances. It's the kind of reminder of how much of a slimeball he really is that we haven't seen in years. It's not a good look. So it might change things. But it might not, and probably shouldn't, because materially nothing has changed; it does nothing to dispel the fact that she's presented nothing notable to support her claim, or the fact that her claim of defamation solely because he denied that he raped her is laughably weak.

Keep in mind, this is a civil case not a criminal case. The burden of proof is lower. The standard is not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." It's something like "a preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence."

I don't think she's presented either. I'm looking forward to seeing what the jury decides.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 07, 2023, 12:27:12 PM »
Well that deposition might change things lol. I don't know what his chances of losing were before but I think they at least went up after that shit show.

Why? What's actually changed? We've known that Trump is a sleazy creep for decades, and even if we take into account the numerous Trump fans who are apparently entirely ignorant of how their idol spent the eighties and nineties, he's still publicly demonstrated what a foul person he is many times over the past several years. If his fans didn't care then, then they won't care now.

I mean, it might not. It really doesn't change the fact that Carroll has no actual evidence of rape and no real grounds to claim defamation under the circumstances. It's just that whenever all someone has to do is keep his head down and answer the questions as simply as possible, and instead does... that... he can really only hurt his chances. It's the kind of reminder of how much of a slimeball he really is that we haven't seen in years. It's not a good look. So it might change things. But it might not, and probably shouldn't, because materially nothing has changed; it does nothing to dispel the fact that she's presented nothing notable to support her claim, or the fact that her claim of defamation solely because he denied that he raped her is laughably weak.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 06, 2023, 06:15:36 PM »
Honestly I'm not sure I do believe it. That's why I have my doubts about her chances.

But he definitely comes off really rapey there.

Apologies for not posting a link.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 94  Next >