Sunday February 22nd is Oscar time. My friends when I was in high school, were all aspiring theater people. I think of the Academy Awards as a big event.
My picks are in italics. I don't have opinions on every category.
BEST PICTURE
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire
Best actor:
Richard Jenkins - THE VISITOR
Frank Langella - FROST/NIXON
Sean Penn - MILK
Brad Pitt - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler
Best Actress
Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married
Angelina Jolie - Changeling
Melissa Leo - Frozen River
Meryl Streep - Doubt
Kate Winslet - The Reader
Best Supporting Actor
Josh Brolin - Milk
Robert Downey Jr. - Tropic Thunder
Phillip Seymour Hoffman - Doubt
Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
Michael Shannon - Revolutionary Road
Best Supporting Acress
Amy Adams - Doubt
Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Viola Davis - Doubt
Taraji P Henson - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Marisa Tomei - The Wrestler
Best Animated Feature Film
BOLT
KUNG FU PANDA
WALL-E
Best Art Direction
Changeling - James J. Murakami, Gary Fettis
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Donald Graham Burt, Victor J. Zolfo
The Dark Knight - Nathan Crowley, Peter Lando
The Duchess - Michael Carlin, Rebecca Alleway
Revolutionary Road - Kristi Zea, Debra Schutt
Best Cinematography
Changeling - Tom Stern
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Claudio Miranda
The Dark Knight - Wally Pfister
The Reader - Chris Menges, Roger Deakins
Slumdog Millionaire - Anthony Dod Mantle
Best Costume Design
Australia - Catherine Martin
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Jacqueline West
The Duchess - Michael O'Connor
Milk - Danny Glicker
Revolutionary Road - Albert Wolsky
Best Director
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - David Fincher
Frost/Nixon - Ron Howard
Milk - Gus Van Sant
The Reader - Stephen Daldry
Slumdog Millionaire - Danny Boyle
Best Feature Documentary
The Betrayal (Nerakhoon) - Ellen Kuras, Thavisouk Phrasavath
Encounters at the End of the World - Werner Herzog, Henry Kaiser
The Garden - Scott Hamilton Kennedy
Man on Wire - James Marsh, Simon Chinn
Trouble the Water - Tia Lessin, Carl Deal
Best Documentary Short Film
The Conscience of Nhem En - Steven Okazaki
The Final Inch - Irene Taylor Brodsky, Tom Grant
Smile Pinki - Megan Mylan
The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306 - Adam Pertofsky, Margaret Hyde
Best Editing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall
The Dark Knight - Lee Smith
Frost/Nixon - Mike Hill, Dan Hanley
Milk - Elliot Graham
Slumdog Millionaire - Chris Dickens
Best Foreign Language Film
The Baader Meinhof Complex - Germany
The Class - France
Departures - Japan
Austria - Revanche
Waltz with Bashir - Israel
Best Makeup
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Greg Cannom
The Dark Knight - John Caglione, Jr., Conor O'Sullivan
Hellboy II: The Golden Army - Mike Elizalde, Thom Floutz
Best Music (Score)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Alexandre Desplat
Defiance - James Newton Howard
Milk - Danny Elfman
Slumdog Millionaire - A.R. Rahman
WALL-E - Thomas Newman
Best Original Song
WALL-E - "Down to Earth"
Slumdog Millionaire - "Jai Ho"
Slumdog Millionaire - "O Saya"
Best Animated Short Film
La Maison de Petits Cubes - Kunio Kato
Lavatory - Lovestory - Konstantin Bronzit
Oktapodi - Emud Mokhberi, Thierry Marchand
Presto - Doug Sweetland
This Way Up - Alan Smith, Adam Foulkes
Best Live Action Short Film
Auf der Strecke (On the Line) - Reto Caffi
Manon on the Asphalt - Elizabeth Marre, Olivier Pont
New Boy - Steph Green, Tamara Anghie
The Pig - Tivi Magnusson, Dorte Høgh
Spielzeugland (Toyland) - Jochen Alexander Freydank
Best Sound Editing
The Dark Knight - Richard King
Iron Man - Frank Eulner, Christopher Boyes
Slumdog Millionaire - Tom Sayers
WALL-E - Ben Burtt, Matthew Wood
Wanted - Wylie Stateman
Best Sound Mixing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce, Mark Weingarten
The Dark Knight - Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo, Ed Novick
Slumdog Millionaire - Ian Tapp, Richard Pryke, Resul Pookutty
WALL-E - Tom Myers, Michael Semanick, Ben Burtt
Wanted - Chris Jenkins, Frank A. Montaño, Petr Forejt
Best Visual Effects
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton, Craig Barron
The Dark Knight - Nick Davis, Chris Corbould, Tim Webber, Paul Franklin
Iron Man - John Nelson, Ben Snow, Dan Sudick, Shane Mahan
Best Adapted Screenplay
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Eric Roth, Robin Swicord
Doubt - John Patrick Shanley
Frost/Nixon - Peter Morgan
The Reader - David Hare
Slumdog Millionaire - Simon Beaufoy
Best Original Screenplay
Frozen River - Courtney Hunt,
Happy-Go-Lucky - Mike Leigh
In Bruges - Martin McDonagh
Milk - Dustin Lance Black
WALL-E - Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon, Pete Docter
RENEGADE EYE
204 comments:
1 – 200 of 204 Newer› Newest»It sure is a weak field. I agree with you about Slumdog Millionaire as BP, but it really wasn't more than a good, 3-star movie. As I wrote in blog yesterday, this group pales next to the 1974 field (it included Chinatown, The Godfather Part II, The Conversation, and Lenny). Francis Ford Coppola directed both The Godfather II and The Conversation!
Slumdog was enjoyable and is probably the best option for best pic/direction.
The most glaring omission is 'Gomorrah' for best foreign lang. film. What the fuck happened there? Too much mob money in Hollywood perhaps?
You seem to like Slumdog Millionaire? But going by Marxist standards, the film is in fact an attempt to fantasize poverty. Here's a link to a good review of the film.
http://www.livemint.com/2009/02/19212120/Why-Slumdog-Millionaire-is-unb.html
Slumdog millionaire is my favorite as well....
But I have too say, there is some what predictability in the Oscars. When I will hear Kate Winslet's name, I will have a smile on my face!
Finally she did a holocaust movie and showed her bottom! :)
Just got back! It was awesome..
I actually like Kate Winslett but you have to admit The Oscars is a little too predictable sometimes... :)
Wait a minute.... why am I being so cynical right after my holiday??? Not a good sign....!
K: The best movies aren't released until fall. Most of the year, the really good movies are few and far between.
This year doesn't compare to 1974.
Sean: Gomorrah didn't open yet in the US, as far as I know.
RedKazim: You should judge art, first in its own language, than in political language.
Trotsky wrote book reviews. He gave reactionary books good reviews. He also put them in a political context.
Slumdog is good enough as cinema, that you can't denounce it as reactionary, and say you reviewed it. It's clever and well structured.
As long as classes exist, all art part bourgeoise. There is no such thing as proletarian or revolutionary art. There is only art.
Nevin: I thought you were on vacation.
The Reader was great. I saw a screening, without reading about it first. Kate Winslett could win by performances in both movies. In Revolutionary Road she was outstanding with Leo De Caprio again.
This year the Oscars are predictable, because there were so few good movies. Not cynicism, just a description.
Sorry, but Social/ Socialist Realism isn't my bag.
i can honestly say we do not support hollywood in any of their endeavors - we do, however, purchase dvds and vhs at tag sales for fifty cents or a buck three or four months AFTER they're released to that medium - that way we can afford to make mobiles to put into our bird sanctuary if the movies are horrible.
as a matter of fact, every time we DON'T go to the theater we can afford to go to branson for an entire day of family fun! weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
FJ: That makes no sense. Socialist realism is a Stalinist manifestation.
If you want to talk about social realist, how does Shostavkovich sound?
Nanc: If you live near a big city, there are often free screenings.
"You should judge art, first in its own language, than in political language."
In A Note On Literature, James T. Farrell (author of the Studs Lonegan trilogy) attempted to bridge this gap with some success. He proposed a Marxist view of art that evaluated art in terms of its underlying Marxist dynamics. As I recall, he argued that these dynamics were always there by definition. (Farrell often turned to Lenin's What Is To Be Done? to bolster his argument.)
Thus, one would in part evaluate Slumdog Millionaire not by how it advanced the revolution, but by how accurately its depiction of slum life reflected the Marxist view of poverty. In this regard, it is more a social than political form of criticism.
Again, it's been a while since I read it, but my recollection is that Farrell started off by agreeing with Ren's position. Thus, a film could provide an accurate assessment of poverty but be a bad movie because it failed artistically. This makes sense to me, as extreme didacticism has a strong tendency to undermine one's message if you are trying to preach to anyone other than the already converted.
Shostakovitch (political denunciations) and Socialist Relism is what happens you get when you allow your arts to become dominated by your political ideologies. Ooops, that's what the International Film Award ceremonies are for, I forgot. To elevate the proper ideologies and perspectives for official approval and uncritical consumption by the unsophisticated masses.... ie - Milk.
Art has several aspects, which is why a reactionary poem or film might still be 'good' art. However, a film with a progressive heart of some kind, and also artistically advanced, can definately be done. Look at Waltz with Bashir.
I have not seen Slumdog Millionaire, but most people I've talked to say it is very depressing movie, and pulls no punches about Mumbai's poverty. That is one reason the Bollywood reactionaries attacked it.
If it indeed is a movie that does not pretend India is only full of software engineers, then that is a benefit. And MIA is going to get more US exposure because of her role in the soundtrack.
"most people I've talked to say it is very depressing movie, and pulls no punches about Mumbai's poverty"
Interesting. I saw it and thought it came uncomfortably close to glamorizing the poverty.
i'm rooting for "Milk" in all nominated categories - absolutely could not be a more timely movie; sean penn (rourke will probably win - h'wood loves a good comeback) and melissa leo (streep and winslet will split the vote). will find out in a just a couple hours.,
K: I thought Slumdog Millionaire showed the contrasts in India, and the craziness of the capitalist system.
It was well constructed, without one minute not directly related to the plot.
Compared to most movies out this year, it was really good.
Trotsky could have been a literature critic, admired many conservative writers. He put the conservatism in context. Marx admired Adam Smith, for representing his time.
Slumdog is a movie, not a manifesto.
FJ: Wait until Ducky comes online, and finds your dissing Shostakovich. He was a socialist, and a brave opponent of Stalin.
Conservatives in Hollywood never faced anything like McCarthyism.
Red Frog: I agree.
Conservatives in Hollywood never faced anything like McCarthyism.
You're right. The current Hollywood blacklist against conservatives is absolute. Just look at the Oscars... no conservative films allowed.
I think it's possible some people might be misinterpreting the movie, or rather the characters and their motivations. Just because many of the characters in the film aren't spending their every waking moment being miserable, filled with anger and self-pity, and railing against the "system", and may in fact in many cases be bright, happy, optimistic types of people with real hopes of one day "making it", with faith in improving their situations, but in the meantime enjoying what simple pleasures in life they might find, and engaging in loving, fulfilling relationships with their family, friends, and loved ones, doesn't necessarily mean that the movie is "glamorizing poverty".
I haven't seen the movie, by the way, but I have an idea that if you look hard enough you can find some point to it. The idea that some kid would take the time to go to all the trouble to get on a show that promises to give him a fighting shot at being rich has to say something about how people are obsessed by the prospects of wealth. You don't have to live in poverty to experience that. Most of the people who make shows like that popular are not exactly poverty stricken, as the success of such shows is dependent on advertising revenue, more often than not based on the purchase of non-essential commodities.
The fact that someone would go to the trouble of appearing on such a show would suggest a troubled life from the very start. From what I understand about the show, the main character's journey is not an easy one. What then is driving him? What is his motivation? It is obviously to make a better life for himself. It might not be as productive as joining a political or activist group, but then again, that wouldn't make for much of a movie.
A lovely quote from Dustin Lance Black, who won best original screenplay for Milk.
"If Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he'd want me to say to all those gay and lesbian kids out there tonight - who have been told that they are less than by their churches, by the government, or by their families - that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures that are valued."
Warms the heart.
It is nice to see the Academy still has a Pixar bias when it comes to full length animated films.
...and four years after Milk died, the 'Gay Disease' would ravage the planet, killing millions. Harvey would have been proud indeed!
FJ:
Oh dear.
Typical.
Did you really have to fall for the bait that quickly?
You are more than aware that referring to AIDS/HIV as the 'Gay Disease' is offensive and inaccurate.
Ren: can I flag that this is yet another example of trolling that would benefit deletion, giving air to these views is akin to condoning it.
Excellent article here that articulates the fiction of the 'Gay Disease' hate speech.
...and I'd direct you to Michael Fumento's "Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" in rebuttal.
And you admit to 'baiting. Good boy. Now maybe you'll be a little more truthful the next time to cry that you never start these thread digressions.
Liberalism has become a culture of Death. Feminists w/abortion and Gays w/AIDS. I guess you people can't value your own lives unless you're destroying the lives of others in the process.
The comment was left in genuine response to Ren's post as one of the best quotes of the night along with Penn's statement about Commies.
As I typed it into the box I thought that if anything was going to further expose you as a shameless hack and troll, full of spite, hatred and prejudice, then that would be it but the source of writing it came from a genuine desire to share a positive, empowering quote from the evening.
Which you have repsonded to in a cruel and shamelessly homophobic way.
As for Michael Fumento's "Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", this is not a rebuttal, this is a bare-faced piece of revionist nonsense that acknowledges none of the facts of the source or scope of AIDS/HIV or those that have it and is written from a right-wing agenda that has no global, medical or political creedence.
Quite clearly, medical science has established that AIDS/HIV is not a 'Gay Disease'.
Your desperate trolling and attacking anything that does not fit with your world view is not only pathetic but destroying the quality of this blog and I can only hope that your homophobic comments, along with my response, are deleted.
Your political ideas are as brutal as they are out dated and you are a cliche of extreme right-wing thinking.
You hold indefensible positions on a whole raft of issues, that verge on hate speak.
Quite clearly, medical science has established that AIDS/HIV is not a 'Gay Disease'
It isn't now that you've successfully infected the world's blood supply, Mr. Revisionist.
As for 'hate speech', we don't enforce that particular brand of unscientific political correctness in America. We prefer to allow people to speak the truth. We don't feel the need to enforce a person's right to go through life w/o being offended.
I can only hope that your homophobic comments, along with my response, are deleted.
And if that were to happen, then this blog would simply be another Left wing echo chamber devoid of serious content or a constructive dialectic. That you seek to sabotage Ren's project should be noted by all.
Ren wrote: "it was well constructed, without one minute not directly related to the plot."
We could violently agree about Slumdog until Trotsky's resurrection from the dead! I thought it was the Best Picture of the movies nominated. I also thought it was a long movie with a thin plot. My choice would have been Rachel Getting Married.
FJ wrote: "enjoying what simple pleasures in life they might find, and engaging in loving, fulfilling relationships with their family, friends, and loved ones, doesn't necessarily mean that the movie is "'glamorizing poverty'"
This would be a good point if it applied to the movie. Unfortunately it doesn't resemble anything actually on the screen. In any case, my point related to the set design, cinematography, and editing elements of direction, and not the screenplay.
SD has a lot going for it. It also has significant drawbacks. That being said, it has more going for it and fewer drawbacks than Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, and -- probably -- The Reader.
Incidentally the definitive book in the early days of AIDS is Randy Shilts' ...And The Band Played On. If you are at all interested in the topic of AIDS, Band is a must read. If you like non-fiction, it's one the best non-fiction books out there.
If my positions are as indefensible as you say they are, then let them be exposed as such. But you would have them censored and removed from sight simply because you cannot defend your own positions. AIDs did not originate with IV drug abusers. It did not originate in a contaminated blood supply. And AIDS is 100-1,000x less likely to be spread via unprotected heterosexual sex with an infected partner than it is with unprotected male on male homosexual sex with an infected partner, especially if that infected partner lies on the giving end of the act.
"successfully infected the world's blood supply"
Again, more hate speech, your terms of reference for debate are couched in the language of hatred.
You do not speak the truth FJ, more hetrosexual men and women have AIDS/HIV than homosexual, in many nations around the globe, hetrosexual men are the leading sufferers and let us not forget the vast raft of women and children blighted with the disease.
You are far away from providing serious content or a constructive dialectic, you are, by your own confession, a troll.
And the idea that your ideas should be allowed to stand is all well and good but they are so lacking in evidence based practice and are grounded in your own prejudiced dogma, for example the AIDS/HIV situation.
All medical research clearly points out the source and path of the disease as it has cut through the world to terrible cost and all you can do is drag out an agreed homophobic term: 'Gay Disease' and posit backward notions that have no medical backing.
AIDS orginated in Africa.
Your claim that "AIDS is 100-1,000x less likely to be spread via unprotected heterosexual sex with an infected partner than it is with unprotected male on male homosexual sex with an infected partner" depends totally on what part of the world you live in, again and in many parts is totally untrue.
Again, you are exposed but I would prefer it if you bigotry was not given a forum here but merely at your own blog.
Let's go back to origins, Danny-boy, for as the Yes song goes, "...truth is in birth."
Let's go back to the very first AIDs victim. Infected by a paedophile... no surprises there.
It's no wonder you depend upon politicians to supply you with free universal health care.
K-
"FJ wrote: "enjoying what simple pleasures in life they might find, and engaging in loving, fulfilling relationships with their family, friends, and loved ones, doesn't necessarily mean that the movie is "'glamorizing poverty'""
It wasn't FJ that said that, it was me. I was responding to something Redkazim said earlier in the comments, only his exact quote was that it was "an attempt to fantasize poverty".
Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, so I was just guessing as to what he was referring to. Ren is right, art should be judged on its own artistic merits alone, and nothing else.
For example, if Milk had won the award, I would probably have been all but sure (maybe or maybe not unfairly) that it was an award based on political considerations, a thumbs up to the Hollywood gay community, as well as support for Sean Penn. The fact that neither the film nor Penn won the award tells me the film was probably so bad it probably in reality should not even have been nominated, but probably was for precisely the reasons I mentioned.
On the other hand, a lot of time Hollywood and the Academy are unfairly maligned. These are the people that booed Michael Moore not too awful long ago.
When politics takes precedence over art, art suffers. Thankfully, the films that are the worst offenders seldom do decent box office.
People don't like to be bullshitted with unrealistic depictions of life, such as fantasized depictions of poverty, but they also hate being preached at. In the former case, it happens mainly because the people making the movie really don't know that much about the subject.
In the latter case, they know exactly what they are doing, they are playing up to the views of a particular audience, and in the end the art suffers because of the focus on the "message" which detracts from the art.
In other words, they end up making shitty movies, because frankly, I don't have to agree with a movie's political views if its good, but if its not good, I'm not going to like it whether or not I agree with the politics. I suspect most people feel the same way, regardless of their political persuasion.
Wasn't AIDS caused by somebody screwing a chimp or something? Now that would make a hell of a flick.
Pagan:
Just to flag that Penn did win, in your comment you seem to unsure as to whether he did or not. This is interesting by you:
"I would probably have been all but sure (maybe or maybe not unfairly) that it was an award based on political considerations, a thumbs up to the Hollywood gay community"
So if Milk wins its a sign of bias and if it doesn't there is obviously no bias. So a lose/lose then for films that maybe do not match with your outlook?
A tough call there. And no AIDS/HIV was not caused by sex with a ape but it did originate from close contact (ie: eating bush meat/hunting) although, let's hope some desperate man was not sexing up an animal.
FJ:
All the links you use disprove your nonsense, not prove it, how funny is that, you need to read what you link to. He he.
First case actually dates back to 1949 in Africa.
And I have no idea what: "It's no wonder you depend upon politicians to supply you with free universal health care." means.
Is that a suggestion that the UK is rife with AIDS/HIV or that it is rife with gay men which is clearly deeply offensive to you.
FJ, why are you a homophobe, what event occured to make you hate so blindly and take a step backward in your humanity?
I eagerly await your answer!
"The fact that neither the film nor Penn won the award tells me the film was probably so bad it probably in reality should not even have been nominated"
Penn won Best Actor, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Considering the competition, Penn as Best Actor is defensible.
I believe that the first westerner diagnosed with AIDS was a female Danish physician who got it while volunteering in Africa. According to Shilts, the sailors who converged on New York City for the long ships celebration in 1976 -- part of the U.S. Bicentennial celebration -- likely brought AIDS to this country.
From what I know, in North America, the fastest growing population with AIDS is African-American women. I don't see what good it does to argue about who started what. The problem is enormous and has the possibility off affecting anyone except gay women (that fact alone ought to be enough to dismiss misleading talk of a "gay disease"). The question is, as Lenin once but it, what is to be done?
""FJ wrote: "enjoying what simple pleasures in life they might find, and engaging in loving, fulfilling relationships with their family, friends, and loved ones, doesn't necessarily mean that the movie is "'glamorizing poverty'""
It wasn't FJ that said that, it was me. I was responding to something Redkazim said earlier in the comments, only his exact quote was that it was "an attempt to fantasize poverty"
Whatever, it doesn't alter my point that the description in the first para doesn't apply to the film. And I stand by my view that SD's treatment of poverty is problematic.
"we don't enforce that particular brand of unscientific political correctness in America. "
We just spent eight years promoting unscientific political correctness. This argument would hold a lot more weight if conservatives recognized the reality of natural selection and climate change. Until that happens, don't blame me for laughing off conservative appeals to science.
I started to watch the Oscars last night, but after that fucked up musical number I turned the TV off. That was just ghastly. I actually felt embarrassed for those people. Imagine being roped into performing something that damned hideous.
I was under the impression Mickey Roark won. So Penn won after all huh? Surprise surprise. Yeah, fine, Penn is a great actor, I acknowledge that, but I still question the validity and the motivations of the award.
Politics needs to be kept out of science just as much as it needs to be kept out of art. Actually more so, as you can make a point for SOME politics in SOME art.
That goes for conservative as well as liberal politics, neither of which belongs anywhere near science.
I'd also like to say that I too would like to see Gomorrah, Sean's recommendation. It sounds intriguing. I enjoy foreign movies, even the sub-titles. In fact, I tend to like the sub-titles.
We just spent eight years promoting unscientific political correctness. This argument would hold a lot more weight if conservatives recognized the reality of natural selection and climate change. Until that happens, don't blame me for laughing off conservative appeals to science.
You can't pick and choose what science you want to believe unless you're willing to trump the science with a moral argument. Most conservatives don't deny natural selection or global warming. They do argue that Darwinian evolution is an ultimately unprovable theory and that the jury is still out on the amount anthropogenic global warming sources contribute to overall climate change.
And Bush publically made his moral argument and appeal regarding limiting stem cell lines available for research to philosophers, scientists and ethicists. He didn't try and "deny" the science or the fact that he was "trumping" it with a political decision.
The Gay community in America, on the other hand, took the political approach, panicking the world with an unscientific epidemiology that exaggerated the risk factors to heterosexuals and skewed funding priorities to emphasize research on an entirely preventable disease and which starved funds from research on much more deadly diseases like cancer.
And so, Milk would likely be extremely proud of the political clout of the Gay community today, for he can measure his 'value' in the number of dollars spent on AIDS research, vice cancer, and in the vastly greater number of people who will die each year from cancer and other diseases the gay community swindled the research money from.
I think he'd want me to say to all those gay and lesbian kids out there tonight - who have been told that they are less than by their churches, by the government, or by their families - that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures that are valued."
Indeed you are valued... just look at all those church going people who'll die each year just so you don't have to wear a condom!
"Most conservatives don't deny natural selection or global warming. They do argue that Darwinian evolution is an ultimately unprovable theory"
Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is a fact. Period. There is no scientific debate about this. Conservatives who make your argument are pandering to the Christian right.
I have yet to hear a prominent conservative come right out and sat that teaching anything other than Darwinian theory is both anti-science and simply wrong. Anyone who did would set off a firestorm with conservative political ranks.
It's easy enough for you to write what you wrote here. Try it on one of the Palinista blogs and see what it gets you.
It depends on which blog he wrote it on. They are not all exactly alike. Some are more tolerant of dissenting views than others, and in fact many conservatives not only believe in sound science, more than you might think are actually atheists. Moxie is just one example, another one is Secular Right. Even many of the mainstream Christian conservatives allow dissenting views.
It helps when you don't go into their sites and call them ignorant bigots.
The ones I've checked out don't need me to tell them they are bigoted and ignorant: They do a great job of broadcasting that themselves.
But look here: If there are all these conservatives who are stalwart defenders of the scientific method, why do they stand aside and let liberals do the heavy lifting when it comes to keeping nonsense like teaching "Intelligent" Design out of schools or the Ten Commandments out of courthouses? And why is it conservatives -- with no opposition from within their own ranks that I've ever heard of -- who keep introducing this junk in the first place? Are you beginning to see why some might think of them as bigoted and ignorant?
Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is a fact. Period. There is no scientific debate about this.
Scientific Fact! Hardly.
Nothing has evolved more since Darwin wrote his "Origin of the Species" than the theory of evolution. Natural selection is merely one component in a larger synthesized evolutionary theory that is still evolving to this very day.
But look here: If there are all these conservatives who are stalwart defenders of the scientific method, why do they stand aside and let liberals do the heavy lifting when it comes to keeping nonsense like teaching "Intelligent" Design out of schools or the Ten Commandments out of courthouses? And why is it conservatives -- with no opposition from within their own ranks that I've ever heard of -- who keep introducing this junk in the first place? Are you beginning to see why some might think of them as bigoted and ignorant?
Why? Because Intelligent Design is a useful idea, as are the Ten Commandments. It isn't "junk". It's not science, but people have to understand that "science" can't provide all or even many of life's answers, especially when it comes to answering questions like "what is a good life" or what the "good" even is. Science can't answer the questions as to whether I should kill you, beat you up or just steal everything you have. As Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Science is only one part of a liberal educational curriculum. The humanities and religion (metaphysics) are others. It's philosophies job to "reconcile" them all.
In what way is Intelligent Design useful? It's a flimsy cover for Creationism, which has no business being taught as part of science curricula. I suppose it's useful in the same sense as the aboriginal belief that the world was sung into existence, except that the aboriginal belief is profound whereas ID is a fad that has no basis in anything.
Who said that the Ten Commandments weren't useful. I just think they don't belong in a courthouse as an expression of religious correctness. The separation of church and state is a good thing -- it's good for everyone on the political spectrum with the exception of out-and-out Christian theocrats -- and it must be defended zealously. Unfortunately, it's liberals who do all the work.
If you can call leading mankind down the path of its' own destruction "doing all the work"...
Are you familiar with the works of Nietzsche? He's famous (or infamous depending upon your perspective) for proclaiming that G_d was dead and his philosophical writings explored the implications of what that statement meant to Western Civilization. Initially, he believed it could only lead to nihilism (a skeptical belief in nothing). His project was an attempt to find a way out for mankind... perhaps in a metaphysics of eternal recurrence... perhaps in a metaphysics of some "Over man" (perhaps a law or philosophical system) yet to be discovered.
And as Nietzsche explained in the third essay of his "Genealogy of Morals"...
If we leave aside the ascetic ideal, then man, the animal man, has had no meaning up to this point. His existence on earth has had no purpose. “Why man at all?” was a question without an answer. The will for man and earth was missing. Behind every great human destiny echoes as refrain an even greater “in vain!” That’s just what the ascetic ideal means: that something is missing, that a huge hole surrounds man—he did not know how to justify himself to himself, to explain, to affirm; he suffered from the problem of his meaning. He also suffered in other ways as well: he was for the most part a pathological animal, but the suffering itself was not his problem, rather the fact that he lacked an answer to the question he screamed out, “Why this suffering?” Man, the bravest animal, the one most accustomed to suffering, does not deny suffering in itself; he desires it; he seeks it out in person, provided that people show him a meaning for it, a purpose of suffering. The curse that earlier spread itself over men was not suffering, but the senselessness of suffering—and the ascetic ideal offered him a meaning! The ascetic ideal has been the only meaning offered up to this point. Any meaning is better than no meaning at all; however one looks at it, the ascetic ideal has so far been the “faute de mieux” [for lack of something better] par excellence. In it suffering was interpreted, the huge hole appeared filled in, the door shut against all suicidal nihilism. The interpretation undoubtedly brought new suffering with it—more profound, more inner, more poisonous, and more life-gnawing suffering; it brought all suffering under the perspective of guilt. . . . But nevertheless—with it man was saved. He had a meaning; from that point on he was no longer like a leaf in the wind, a toy ball of nonsense, of “without sense”; he could now will something—at first it didn’t matter where, why, or how he willed: the will itself was saved. We simply cannot conceal from ourselves what is really expressed by that total will which received its direction from the ascetic ideal: this hate against what is human, even more against animality, even more against material things—this abhorrence of the senses, of reason itself, this fear of happiness and beauty, this longing for the beyond away from all appearance, change, becoming, death, desire, even longing itself—all this means, let’s have the courage to understand this, a will to nothingness, an aversion to life, a revolt against the most fundamental preconditions of life—but it is and remains a will! . . . And to finish up by repeating what I said at the beginning: man will sooner will nothingness than not will . . .
Science cannot answer the question as to why man exists. But if science is placed upon a pedestal unto itself as the highest authority for all mankind, it will lead mankind to the conclusion than there is no meaning to our existence and lead many of us to will "nothingness".
So the idea of an intelligent design preserves a meaning to our existence... to discover that design. Science itself now has meaning. Otherwise, why pursue science at all? And if I do chose to pursue it, why not simply exercise a form of "social Darwinism" a place where those who invent the WMD's believe themselves to have been naturally selected through intelligence to rule the remainder?
I agree that separation of church and state is "great" up to the point where it prevents the state's citizens from freely exercising their religious beliefs or goes so far as to drive all the diverse religious beliefs that the practice was instituted to protect out of that society... and leads us to a point where atheism and ultimately nihilism is forced upon us all.
I think that if people were to suddenly learn just exactly how it was that everything came into being, it would be stunning in its overall simplicity. It would be like everybody would collectively say "What? THAT'S IT?" Problem is, people try to approach the idea from a perspective that there has to be a very overly-complicated answer, and they end up overshooting the mark by miles.
It's really not that complicated. It just seems like it should be.
So, anybody else here besides Sean seen Gomorrah?
"Science cannot answer the question as to why man exists."
Neither can religion. Nor can anything else. We're not meant to know the answer. That's what faith is all about, if you're a believer. In any case, science doesn't ask this question in the first place.
"So the idea of an intelligent design preserves a meaning to our existence... to discover that design."
It doesn't preserve anything as long as its pseudo-scientific blather. ID presents itself as a scientific theory, but offers nothing in the form of a provable or disprovable hypothesis. Moreover, no -- as in zed, zero, nil, nada -- scientific research has been done on its behalf.
Creationism/ID were offered as scientific alternatives to Darwinian theory. They have failed dismally in that respect, simply because there is nothing in the least bit scientific about them. And you want me to buy in to the argument that ID somehow gives meaning to science? Please. If I had to hang my existential hat on the veracity ID, I'd be suicidal.
"Nor can anything else. We're not meant to know the answer."
Says who?
That life and the purpose of life is a mystery has been a central tenet of many world religions for some centuries now.
Pagan: Gomorrah didn't open in the US, or have screenings yet.
AIDS from the monkey might have spread by biting.
Your speculating about Milk was absurd. It wasn't really expected to be best picture. It was a good movie, not great. Penn's performance was outstanding. Penn was better than the movie as a whole. Slumdog Millionaire was better as a whole. No single performance equaled Penn's.
FJ:I agree that separation of church and state is "great" up to the point where it prevents the state's citizens from freely exercising their religious beliefs or goes so far as to drive all the diverse religious beliefs that the practice was instituted to protect out of that society... and leads us to a point where atheism and ultimately nihilism is forced upon us all.
That is absurd. When has Atheism or nihilism, been forced on you, or anyone else?
When I was a kid in elementary school, back in the days of black and white TV, I had to in public school sing Jesus Loves Me.
Marx wrote about in America, because of the seperation of church and state, had more religious freedom and religious practice, than governments with official religions. Because religion is not part of the state, that allowed religion to grow as a social force.
I like Listerine mouthwash. It was invented by Dr. Lister. Dr. Lister showed that bacteria and viruses were the cause of illness, not punishment from God, for immoral behavior.
It's a dangerous idea, believing HIV is a gay disease. That idea killed many people, because of political oppurtunism, Reagan allowed AIDS to spread for eight years, before he even mentioned it in a speech.
There is no scientific debate about evolution. The scientific community is united against ID. You don't believe dinosaurs and humans, were around together?
Bob: I'm not an animation fan. I would have liked to see the Israeli film about Lebanon.
K: I agree overall. I didn't find SD overlong.
Daniel H-G: Reagan was in office 8 years, before he mentioned AIDS. The gay disease idea, caused the initial response to be weak.
Speaking of AIDS, I like Rent. I remember the period, when it devastated the artistic community.
K:
Great stuff indeed, glad to see another voice on here besting that of FJ. Totally agree with your statement: "what is to be done?" that is the biggest question while we argue pointlessly on an Internet thread.
Pagan:
Penn won becuase he was the best actor in the opinion of the academy, it's not politically motivated, if Rourke wins does that mean the political message of The Wrestler has won the day? Unlikely.
Politics is in everything, everything is political and as someone who has made art, politics is always in it whether you like it or not.
And Pagan, you are not, I think an idiot but why are you drawn to defending FJ's extreme right-wing positions?
FJ:
You pick and choose and ignore what disagrees with your standpoint.
Most conservatives do indeed deny basic tenents of science as their moral guide book, in their worldview, bests it.
I do hate to tell you this but evolution is not a theory and has been provable for some time.
The fact that Bush's bizarre moral code (torture good, stem cell research bad) got anywhere near decision making process is terrible at best and criminal at worst.
As for the gay community in America, I'd hold back on exposing yourself with backward views and nasty language, you have no idea or understanding of the gay community and have ducked the question, which is why are you a homophobe?
To smear an entire section of society by saying that they have been: "panicking the world with an unscientific epidemiology that exaggerated the risk factors to heterosexuals and skewed funding priorities to emphasize research on an entirely preventable disease and which starved funds from research on much more deadly diseases like cancer."
The world isn't in panic, you are clearly, the world is trying to get on with making the terrible impact of AIDS/HIV far less, in all the communities it hurts.
I get the feeling that you are a terrible, tasteless joke, how could anyone with a mind that functions write: "just look at all those church going people who'll die each year just so you don't have to wear a condom!"
Wrong on all counts, spiteful, hate speech.
So coward question ducker, why are you as homophobe?
And to be clear, Intelligent Design is not a useful idea at all and that is as simple as that.
I would argue that defenders of ignorance, like you, so so becuase they are ignorant.
And Albert Einstein was an atheist, whose words and misquotes were desperately stolen by a religious community unsecure in tis defence against science's power to best its Bronze Age thinking.
Ren:
Much here of late has been absurb, there is a way to stop it.
And so it goes.
Ren,
Science is full of dangerous ideas. HIV can only be "sustainably" spread in two manners. Anal sex and hypodermic needles. One of those manners isn't very scientific. The other is.
People complain that ID isn't "scientific". It's hypothesis is unprovable. Duh. That's the point. Science is "backwards" looking. Somebody's got to postulate a false point AHEAD of us for man to "progress" towards. And selecting "Darwinism" as that point is a non-starter.
There's natural selection. There's artificial selection. MAN choses his direction through artificial selection.
Some day, we'll be able to genetically modify our children and the crops we raise and animals we eat. Just "which" genetic modifications should we choose to implement? Larger brains? A tail? Science doesn't have the answer. And admittedly, neither do I. ANd ID may not be an "answer"... but hey, does OUR side have to do ALL the hard work by itself?
Okay, I want to say something by way of making a point about this discussion, and since Ren understandably wants to keep discussions in context of the posts, I'll do that here.
Suppose somebody developed the following plot synopsis into a movie-
A group of scientists genetically engineer a human being to have a huge brain in order to enable it to be able to conceive the answer to the greatest mysteries of life, including the greatest one of all-what is the ultimate origin of life.
I refer to this being as an "it" because in order to preclude sexual drives getting in the way, they create it to be an asexual being, whose entire purpose for existing is to stud and learn.
Naturally, this being goes on to conceive answers to scientific problems that no one else ever dreamed of, and as a result has to be zealously guarded and looked after, as it is so advanced mentally, simple things like holding a fork and spoon or crossing a street carefully are beyond its grasp.
He is put into a huge, heavily guarded compound and told to concentrate on the mystery of the origins of life. It is given every amenity it desires in order to assure absolute single-minded devotion to this project, which ends up driving it bat-shit insane.
It ends up using the almost limitless power of its mind to kill and destroy great numbers of people throughout the world in a variety of ways and has constructed a means of defense in order to prevent interference with this sudden urge.
He's eventually put a stop too of course, but the reason this happens is because the answer he's been seeking is so completely simple that it drives him completely over the edge. When the "hero" of the movie finally makes his way into the compound he sees it crumpled up in the floor in a fetal position, its words the incomprehensible ravings of an utter lunatic. It's clear that it will never recover.
Of course if I was making this movie, I would add some controversial aspects to it. I would have a villainous assassin hired by people who don't want mankind to learn the truth, a person who goes about killing everybody who stands in his way, including at the end, the hero or heroine who has been the main characters friend, guide, and protector. At the end, as he or she is getting ready to administer the fatal gunshot to kill the entity, he sees it crumpled on the bed, rocking back and forth, singing "Jesus Loves Me", or something to that effect. He stands there in shock listening to this, before he is finally gunned down by a security guard.
The point being that this business "it's too complicated for us to know the answer" is a bunch of self-serving crap by people who use God as a one-size fits all answer to questions that they have never been able to answer yet. If a creator deity created the universe, well and good, but where did the creator deity come from? And where did what created the creator deity come from, and so on and so forth.
In other words, its not really an answer at all, its a cop out and "we aren't meant to know the answer" is the ultimate cop out.
No we aren't "meant" to know the answer, but then again we aren't "not meant" to know the answer either, because design and purpose has nothing to do with it. It's just something we haven't figured out yet, and when we do, I say it will end up being a relatively simple answer.
By the way, this is not intended as a slam at those who believe in God, just saying that God doesn't answer the question until and if you can answer the question as to that deity's origin in a scientific and comprehensible way as well.
"Well, he's always been here and has never changed and we can't hope to comprehend that" just don't cut it.
That is absurd. When has Atheism or nihilism, been forced on you, or anyone else?
Worse. Go into my children's classroom and you'll discover that religion, G_d and the Bible CANNOT be discussed. Period. The kids can discuss Darwin. They can discuss the possibility that life has NO purpose. But if they talk about the possibility that there is a "higher" meaning to our lives outside of Atheism or nihilism, their thoughts are shut down... can't go there. So let them talk about "Intelligent Design". It fills the void that our laws explicitly prohibit, even though Atheism AND Nihilism are actually "religions" of an inverse sort.
Since you can't refrain from calling me a homophobe dealing in "hate speech", I'm not bound to not call you names either.
So poofty, let me directly address your question as to, "Why am I a homophobe."
For the same reason that you are a spiteful Christian hater. Your kind still hasn't forgotten their hey day when homo's ruled supreme as priests in the Catholic Church. We mere Christians were always merely "faggots for your fires", so to speak.
I dunno, TPT, that's a mighty long post to admit that you don't know the meaning of life and likely never will. But "we" will know it someday. And it will be something simple. But you have no idea of what it is. But it's there. You are certain of that much. Seems to me that you are making my point for me. Thanks!
Here's my last word on ID: Believing the ID has merit is the same intellectually as believing that the earth is flat. It is so profoundly deluded that it taints any idea about anything put forth by its adherents.
As opposed to the Left's adherents contribution to the effort of helping avoiding the coming descent into nihilism, which is, was and always will be...Zero. The New Left call themselves "progressives" yet they cannot articulate the goal or destination that they are "progressing" towards.
Libs can tear down, but they can't build up. Too much invested in "critical theories", Queer theories, feminist critiques, and Africa-American studies. I guess we'll just have to drag them with us, kicking and screaming, as usual.
btw - I do know the meaning of life. I just don't like it. That's why the Right is going to change it.
Nietzsche, WtP 1067
--do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?-- This world is the will to power--and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power--and nothing besides!
Let the bellum omni contra omes begin!
"I dunno, TPT, that's a mighty long post to admit that you don't know the meaning of life and likely never will. But "we" will know it someday. And it will be something simple. But you have no idea of what it is. But it's there. You are certain of that much. Seems to me that you are making my point for me. Thanks!"
Actually, I do know, I just ain't saying for free on a blog comment section. Cough up something in the neighborhood of ten million dollars and we'll talk if it's really that important to you.
And yes, it's simple.
Nietzsche, WtP 858 (Nov. 1887-March 1888)
What determines your rank is the quantum of power you are: the rest is cowardice.
Sorry,
I gave it away two minutes before you posted PT...
"Actually, I do know, I just ain't saying for free on a blog comment section. Cough up something in the neighborhood of ten million dollars and we'll talk if it's really that important to you."
A. I don't have 10 mil sitting around to give to some random guy who claims to know the meaning of life.
B. It's not that important to me.
But I am curious to know why -- out of all the people in the world -- you are one of the chosen few who knows what the meaning of life is. Offhand, I suspect that I'd get a better answer from a bearded guy in a robe waving a sign that says "The End Is Near."
"But I am curious to know why -- out of all the people in the world -- you are one of the chosen few who knows what the meaning of life is. Offhand, I suspect that I'd get a better answer from a bearded guy in a robe waving a sign that says "The End Is Near.""
You might get an answer you like better, but I seriously doubt it would be the better answer, i.e. the right one. It's more than just "the meaning of life", which is a part of it, it's how the whole universe came into being.
As for why me, why not me? Out of all the people living in the eighteen hundreds, why was Edison the one who invented the light bulb? Why was Bell the one who invented the telephone?
OH MY GOD!
FJ HAS KIDS!
FUCK!
Not only does that mean someone bred with the fucking cunt, it also means that there are offshoots of his fucking backward thinking bullshit out there in the world.
The gene pool is muddied by this kind of shit but thankfully, nature will no doubt run its course with ruthless efficiency.
Brilliant.
Glad to see we stayed on topic of the Oscars, glad to see that people think they have the meaning of life (HA HA HA), glad to see that FJ thinks that being called a homophobe is akin to being insulted when you are a homophobe but want to posit bigoted views but don't want the stigma that comes with that.
Reminds of PT skipping out on that one...
And as Ren will let this kind of shit stand, best to let every fucking thread grind down into pointless shit, every single fucking time.
Ace.
Let the 200+ tit-for-tat comments commence.
And FJ, you subhuman piece of fucking shit, you still haven't answer my question.
Why are you a homophobe?
Do keep in mind I don't hate Christians and try and answer a question for once you cowardly fucking piece of human shaped shit.
FJ has it down pat, sick and tired of fucking homos, fags and child rapists infesting hollywood with their bullshit while real stories go untold about real americans.
And fuck that limey motherfucker, what does he know, piece of fucking limey shit. I have contacts in the uk and I can get that motherfucker shot dead.
Let me know and keep up the good work FJ.
As I've commented before, Pooftey, I don't "fear" homosexuals (homophobia). I just find scatological sex acts and coprophagia disgusting and don't see why the practice merits state or federal tax subsidies and/ or social acclaim (as in a film award) or institutionalization (as an equivalent to marriage). As far as I'm concerned, it's a epidemiological pathway to disease and further anti-social perversions that should once again be either strictly regulated/ limited or completely outlawed.
@ Ren - You're not missing anything by not seeing Wall-E. "Waltz with Bashir" does look interesting, but is an example of a film that will never play in a theater near me.
Netflix is awesome.
@ FJ - Ok, I'll bite - what evidence do you have that supports your belief that homosexuality is subsidized by the government?
" I just find scatological sex acts and coprophagia disgusting and don't see why the practice merits state or federal tax subsidies and/ or social acclaim (as in a film award) or institutionalization (as an equivalent to marriage). "
Once I wielded the machetes of comprehension and chopped through the Latinate jungle of your prose, I read this: You believe that a relationship is defined by one's sexual habits and practices. You also believe that the practice of "coprophagia" and other "scatological sex acts" is a defining and exclusive trait of homosexuality, and that heterosexuals do neither.
And yet you are not a homophobe. But you are disgusted by homosexuals. Which -- by your lights -- doesn't make you a homophobe because what you hate is not homosexuality but the practice of homosexuality as you define it.
This all reminds me of that notable introductory clause that those of us who grew up in the south heard so often: "I'm not prejudiced, but..." This inevitably led to a bigoted observation about black people or Latinos that was in theory not bigoted solely because the one making the statement had first assured his audience that he was "not prejudiced." Except that, of course, he was.
Me, I learned a long time ago that if it walk, talks, and acts like a duck, it's a duck. If you are going to speak, write, and act like a homophobe, have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Danielle Hoff "man"n Silly-
You just can't help yourself, can you? You just can't stop. But you've really stepped over the line now.
"OH MY GOD!
FJ HAS KIDS!
FUCK!"
Oh so now you're going after people's kids. Sweet. Frankly, I would be willing to bet good money that FJ's kids are better educated and civilized than any brood that might be unfortunate to be hatched by yourself, but at least I would be willing to give them a chance to be their own selves and judge them as individuals, despite the obvious strikes against them they are going to have starting out in life.
"Not only does that mean someone bred with the fucking cunt, it also means that there are offshoots of his fucking backward thinking bullshit out there in the world."
So if FJ has kids, that means they must be definition be just like him in every way to your way of thinking. Interesting.
"The gene pool is muddied by this kind of shit but thankfully, nature will no doubt run its course with ruthless efficiency."
I'm sure you would be ready and willing to give nature a hand, wouldn't you?
"Brilliant."
No, actually, ignorant.
"Glad to see we stayed on topic of the Oscars, glad to see that people think they have the meaning of life (HA HA HA),"
Yeah, I allowed myself to be temporarily steered off-topic. Thread drift happens in a long comments section, it's to be expected up to a point. Some people seem to enjoy it more than others. Some people just can't seem to let it rest.
"glad to see that FJ thinks that being called a homophobe is akin to being insulted when you are a homophobe but want to posit bigoted views but don't want the stigma that comes with that."
Seems to me like he could care less about any stigma, judging by his remarks and the reaction he typically gets.
"Reminds of PT skipping out on that one..."
Huh? I've only been trying to keep it down after Ren complained about it, but you won't let it go. You're like the Energizer Bunny, just skipping along like you always do.
"And as Ren will let this kind of shit stand, best to let every fucking thread grind down into pointless shit, every single fucking time."
So because Ren doesn't want to disrupt the continuity of his comments threads, you think that means he secretly approves of all this? It's really all about you, is that it? Of course, as we shall soon see, it doesn't surprise me that you would have this attitude.
"Ace."
Ho-hum
"Let the 200+ tit-for-tat comments commence."
Right, because like I told you before, you like the shit and can't do without it. It evidently adds meaning to your life to be able to come on here and attack people, and for what? Because they don't agree with you on certain things. I bet you get in a lot of fights, don't you?
I think there's a skillet with your name on it if you ever do get married to that poor deluded girl, Eva Jane. She'll wise up to your shit eventually, and it won't be pretty. It could even get violent.
Otherwise, if you ever see her giggling with one of her friends-say one of her male friends, for example-and they glance in your direction while they're laughing, don't turn around. I don't think you'll like it too much when you see there's nobody behind you.
"And FJ, you subhuman piece of fucking shit, you still haven't answer my question."
"Why are you a homophobe?"
Maybe he just doesn't like gay people in general, ever think of that? Maybe he's just tired of all their drama queen bullshit. I know I am, and I used to be a big gay rights supporter. Everything in the world, the universe, and beyond, is about them, them, and nobody but them, to hear them tell it, and everybody else should just shut the fuck up and play along with anything they want. Maybe there's something about being gay that has something to do with needing to grow up.
Hey, whaddaya know, I just had a theory. I think somebody should look into that. Of course, if they do, that obviously means they are "homophobes" and engaging in hate speech.
"Do keep in mind I don't hate Christians and try and answer a question for once you cowardly fucking piece of human shaped shit."
Seems to me that he's answered your question more than once, even several times. You don't get to keep this going until you get the answer you like.
And by the way, not that I'm accusing anybody of anything, but is there even a slight chance that you are actually the person that wrote the following bilge?-
"FJ has it down pat, sick and tired of fucking homos, fags and child rapists infesting hollywood with their bullshit while real stories go untold about real americans."
"And fuck that limey motherfucker, what does he know, piece of fucking limey shit. I have contacts in the uk and I can get that motherfucker shot dead."
It was supposedly sent by somebody named "Henry Abbott", but he seems to not have a public profile.
Do you know what I think? I think Henry Abbott is you, just wanting to start more shit.
"Let me know and keep up the good work FJ."
How is anybody supposed to let you know through a private profile, Daniel? Oh, I guess FJ is supposed to start a friendly conversation with good ol' Henry Abbott here on this comments thread.
Who knows, maybe they'll talk about movies.
I'm done with this. Don't bother to respond, and by the way, from now on whenever you see my name on the comments page, do me a favor and just keep on scrolling down? Okay?
Buh-bye now.
SOMEONE SAVE FJ'S KIDS PLEASE! THEY ARE BEING HARMED BY THE HOMOPHOBIC, BIGOTED, RACIST RIGHTWING FUCK!
PLEASE SAVE THE FARMER'S KIDS BEFORE WE HAVE ANOTHER WACO!
And K, I've had this with both PT and FJ before, they want to talk the right-wing talk but they are not willing to walk it, ie: wear the badges of their bigotry with pride becuase they know their bigotry is unacceptable. They want their shit-cake and eat it.
Tired of reasoned debate, best to troll as they do. Easier that way.
Henry Abbott:
Are you FJ'S wife? If so how are the kids and is it hard keeping them alive under such difficult conditions?
PT:
Where to start with you? I like how you read FJ's mind, if Henry is his wife then you is his bitch, cool, have fun.
I love how the second I jokingly run my mouth off in FJ troll fashion, you're all over it like the fact police, FJ runs his mouth off and you either don't comment or make glib comments.
GOOD ONE SKIPPER, YOU'RE A REAL NICE GUY WITH SUCH MORAL COURAGE!
HA HA HA!
As for Eva-Jane, don't make me fucking laugh you maggot cocked fucking cunt faced putz, who is clearly all jealous as fuck.
Yes you fucking bitch, I get the girl, I get the job and I get the money and I get the fucking smarts.
Bitter pill to swallow but this trolling at blogs sure is fun and I eagerly await fucking shit up on a grand scale.
WHY BOTHER WITH RESPONSIBILITY WHEN ONE CAN TROLL.
This is good.
Now fuck off.
FJ - Ok, I'll bite - what evidence do you have that supports your belief that homosexuality is subsidized by the government?
A funny thing happened back in the 1980's. Reagan ended the "marriage penalty" in taxes. Ever since, the poofters have been screaming for partner medical benefits and marriage licenses. Two can live more cheaply than one.
But back in the day when that wasn't true, when two incomes were taxed at a premium, you never heard jack sh*t about homo marriage...
K. a "phobia" is based upon a fear. My dislike of homosexuals is based upon disgust. I'm a homodisgustipated individual, not a homophobic one.
Gee, thanks for clearing that up.
My dictionary defines phobia as "an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something." If the shoe fits...
Poofty, How much money do you make again? And just between us girls, what did you pay for your flat in Chelsea?
I get the girl, I get the job and I get the money and I get the fucking smarts.
LOL!
My dictionary defines phobia as "an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something." If the shoe fits...
Just because people don't like stepping in sh*t on the sidewalk doesn't mean they have a "phobia".
When the psychiatric community finally took homosexuality off the list of mental disorders a couple of years ago, the homosexuals attempted to label straights as having a corresponding mental disorder... hence the "homophobia" label was created.
Homosexuality can be a mental disorder... a kind of unresolved Oedipal complex. I think poofty's behaviour on this thread, and others, is a perfect example of it.
What can I say, amongst my many other talents, I'm a strict Freudian.
Hitler was coprophagic. That's why he loved Ernst Rohm and the SA boys... but he sadly did his duty on the night of the long knives.
"Just because people don't like stepping in sh*t on the sidewalk doesn't mean they have a 'phobia."
No, but when someone classifies an entire group of people as shit on a sidewalk because of their genetic makeup, that person has an irrational fear or aversion to that group.
"What can I say, amongst my many other talents, I'm a strict Freudian."
I had no idea that Freud was a homophobe.
"They want their shit-cake and eat it."
FJ and PT are coprophagiasts? Does that mean that they are latent, self-loathing homosexuals? That explains a lot...
Unfortunately, we're repressed homosexuals, K. In other words, straight. Of course, if poofty were to ever tempt us to liberate us from our repressed sexuality, then perhaps we could then become latent, self-loathing homosexuals. But hey, I've seen I've seen poofty's picture... and I don't think he has what it would take. And neither do you. :*
Now poofty's an unrepressed homosexual. Having never successfully resolved his Oedipal complex, he never learned to regret killing his father and then sleeping with his mother. And so he never removed the brooches from Jocasta's gown and gouged his own eyes out, like the rest of us "repressed" homosexuals did.
Fortunately Theseus saw where Oedipus disappeared in the Sacred Grove of the Eumenides just outside Athens at Colonus. ;-)
HaHaHaHa I love it how homosexuals try to attack their critics by calling them homosexuals, if that don't tell you something nothing does.
K-
Here's my thing, maybe you missed it.
"Maybe he just doesn't like gay people in general, ever think of that? Maybe he's just tired of all their drama queen bullshit. I know I am, and I used to be a big gay rights supporter. Everything in the world, the universe, and beyond, is about them, them, and nobody but them, to hear them tell it, and everybody else should just shut the fuck up and play along with anything they want. Maybe there's something about being gay that has something to do with needing to grow up."
Yep, I was speaking for myself there. Plus, there's politics.
The gay activist community by and large are Democrats, and their votes are cast solely to Democrats over gay issues. Everything's all about them and there are no other issues worth considering.
I'm fine with Log Cabin Republicans because they tend to have some nuance to their views. They actually tend to think of other issues of importance besides gay issues.
The "coprhogia" thing I could care less about. I never knew the word even before now. Is that anal sex? If so, I'm fine with it. I will even do it, to a woman that is. I know you probably think it's "homophobic" of me to feel the need to point that out, but hey, it is what it is.
For one thing, sorry but men just don't do anything for me, and in the second place, it's a damn good thing they don't, because if I was to ever feel a gerbil gnawing on my dick from the inside of someones ass I think I'd probably have a panic attack.
Yeah, I think they're disgusting, for things like that they do, and also for example-well, look up Quimby, I don't want to go into it.
Still, there's a lot of things I think are disgusting, doesn't mean I hate people that don't agree. I just can't stand the drama queen crap and the self-serving bullshit that goes along with it, especially the political rot and what not.
No, but when someone classifies an entire group of people as shit on a sidewalk because of their genetic makeup, that person has an irrational fear or aversion to that group.
I never made that classification...
And do you really think people are homosexual because of their genetic makeup? You think it's 100% nature and 0% nurture? Wow. You've really bought the Kool-Aid.
There are homosexual "brain" patterns in "some" male homosexuals... caused largely by low levels of testosterone...a hormone which unlike estrogen is capable of crossing the brain-blood barrier leading to the formation of a more "female" neuronal pattern richer in amygdalic connections but lacking in septal nucleic ones... but these patterns are only distinguishable in a minority of homosexuals. These testosterone deficiencies (or in some cases excess XYY) may have genetic roots, but it is a deficient socialization process that allows a minor hormonal deficiency to translate into an exclusive homosexual preference.
So in layman's language its basically a hormone deficiency which is treatable. Major obstacle-pride.
Someone here is drinking Kool-Aid, that's for sure. FJ, do you have any idea of how weird you sound?
You wrote, "just because people don't like stepping in sh*t on the sidewalk doesn't mean they have a 'phobia'." Maybe I've misread this whole thread and it's heterosexuals who are shit on a sidewalk?
I think I must have miaread this thread myself, I was under the impression it's supposed to be about the Oscars and movies and stuff.
Whoops, what do you know, it IS supposed to be about the Oscars and movies and stuff, but its strangely got hijhacked into a thread about homosexuality.
Of course that does fit into what I was saying before. With certain people, everything just has to be about them.
Okay, I'm done with this thread until it goes back to movies.
Ren, I think I know where I can see Gomorrah. If I'm right, and I am able to see it, I might post a review of it on my blog. I'm not really that hopeful though, I think its probably a less than fifty percent shot, but still worth checking into.
Which is just my way of making a contribution toward getting this comment thread back on topic.
Ironically enough, by talking about a movie with the title "Gomorrah", which might in fact be responsible for this thread drift. I'm sure the visual image that name inspires in certain people might tend to make them erupt in paroxysms of passion and-
Shit, here I go again, just can't help myself.
Sorry, Ren, but to paraphrase a line from the Godfather III-a movie-
"I try to leave, but they just keep dragging me back in."
You've got serious problems K if you think that sh*t on a sidewalk has to either represent straights or gays. Sometimes it's just sh*t. The point was, that you don't avoid stepping in it because you have a "phobia".
And poofty knows why this thread drifted. Like Sean Penncildick, he needed to use this platform to take a shot at the Church.
Insert lyrics to 'Last Caress' here.
...suicide is painless, poofty.
Insert lyrics to 'Hate Your Friends' here.
I stayed a way for a while hoping things would improve, but I see they haven't. The Farm Boy is out there spreading hate as usual and Pagan is doing his Tony Blair role to Farm Boy's George Bush. Shame on both of you.
Nice to see you still playing Quisling to poofty's Eichmann too, boner.
...it brings on many changes, poofty.
Who's spreading hate? LOL!
I have tried to help keep this thread focused on movies but "they just keep dragging me back in".
By the way, I found a site to watch Gomorah, but its useless to me-no subtitles. If anybody is interested and understands Italian you can see it on Watch-Movies.net.
From the first few minutes of it I saw-it opens with what appears to be a mob hit by a traitorous insider-it's worth your time, if you understand Italian. Too bad there's no subtitles.
I'm not posting anything, until its safe to.
I never banned anyone (not even Beakerkin), or do I plan to delete this discussion.
I want to ask for self censorship, Stay on topic, and don't get personal.
In the early days of blogging, there was actual discussion of issues. I was usually attacked from the left.
over?
Ren, you've the patience of a saint.
Saint.
Poofty.
Homophobe.
(No need for link, just look in mirror Know Nothing)
Over?
To quote Ren:
"I'm not posting anything, until its safe to."
Ashamed yet FJ?
Ashamed of what Poofty? You're the one he's ashamed of.
To quote Ren:
"I'm not posting anything, until it's safe to."
Ashamed yet FJ?
You're the troll, not I, keep up your terrible work and keep destroying these threads.
You prefer it that way.
Poor little man...
You're over FJ.
Poofty, I'm not the brazenly off-topic queen. That would be you. Shameless much?
FJ, you are the off-topic bitch due to using this thread as a soap box for your homophobia.
You'll see it is called THE ACDAEMY AWARDS THREAD, not GAY BASHING THREAD.
Glad that's cleared up and glad you keep burying your head in the sand regarding Ren's request.
Nice one.
Next!
Sean Penn used this years award to go off-topic and go pro-homo-political. Then so, admittedly baiting, did you. Are you a Penn wannabe? It's just a shame that instead of allowing you to mimic Penn with a monologue on the virtues of fudge packing, a blog allows others who fail to see its virtues, respond, isn't it poofty?
Off topic at an awards ceremony?
How vacuous do you want it to be or are you so simple as to think that politics is seperate from art and vica versa?
Politics is everything and everywhere, just perhaps not in a form we all recognise. A film that deals with the issues that Milk did would mean that it would be a crime not to touch on the issues of repression and prejudice towards gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people.
As Penn says, equal rights, human rights, the right to form a legal bond with your partner.
From the phrase 'pro-homo' alone you mark yourself out as a bigot and homophobe but what is worse FJ is that you do not even have the courage of your convictions to wear your badge of shame with pride.
I smell a coward.
You smell of crapulence indeed, poofty, that's a given. And it would seem that your particular brand of bigotry allows you to wear your red badge of shameful courage with pride. I suppose that makes you a "flaming" or "righteous" homosexual.
But is it a mere prejudice that accounts for society's ostracism of homosexuals? Or is it as I contend, that sodomy has always been a pathway for disease which renders its' practitioners a danger to that society's survival.
You may argue that all sexual activity constitutes a "hazard", but I will argue that not all sexual activity is necessary for the survival of the species, and a set of sexual practices which minimize said health risk and proves itself most "repro-ductive" would constitute the "Darwinian" fittest.
You have an odd fecal obsession little man, fair play to you but perhaps you need to rid yourself of your own personal baggage before commenting.
You cry victim whilst perscuting vigourously, it doesn't wash I'm afraid, old tactics used by bullies worldwide, try being honest rather than hiding behind such flimsy techniques.
As for society's ostracism of homosexuals, I think you'll find that it is only some societies that are guilty of that and mostly it is the backward ones, ones not so progressed, thankfully many societies do not ostracise gay, lesbian bi-sexual behaviour.
The good news is homosexual behaviour is natural and common in all sexualised life forms, the bad news for you is that your atttitudes are a dying breed of bigotry, one that classes anal sex as somehow evil and unpure, seriously, you should try it with the wife FJ, or perhaps allow your missus to insert her didget into your anus to tease your prostate to ease the gushing forth of man-magma from your penis.
Soceity will survive, as long as we don't cave in to the hatred and nonsense spouted by the likes of fringe thinkers like you.
Good luck with the sexual experimentation, let me know how that goes.
And no, I will not argue that sexual activity presents a hazard as sexual activity is far too much fun, especially when you're doing it with someone you love.
Just to flag this up to you, sex isn't just about breeding, it's also about having fun so next time you're at it, worry less about advancing (or perhaps not) the species and more about pleasing your partner.
You should be paying for this advice.
So what do "progressive" societies get for all their tolerance? A multi-trillion dollar AIDS problem that unfortunately decimates the so-called "backwards" societies and leaving the progressive ones to scramble for medical cures as a replacement for simple common sense.
How many innocent Africans have died of AIDS so that Harvey Milk could play duck-duck-goose in some gay bath house in San Francisco? And you have the nerve to call me a "racist"?
"Oooh, but it's such fun to slip a pinky past the rectum..." Great counter-argument, poofty.
Anyone who uses progressive or tolerance as a negative is clearly on the wrong side of the fence, bitterness and backwardness are fine in your own life but best to keep that kind of thinking out of politics, it's about rising the bar, not setting it at the lowest point as an act of risk management.
Sorry to break this to you but humanity's progression and tolerance is not done for reward, it's done becuase it is the right thing to do and as we go on humnaity tries to keep rising the bar, trying to rid itself of the prejudice that holds it back.
Disease is part of humanity, we do out best to fight it, to beat it, onwards and upwards.
As for innocent Africans, by default you are suggesting that homosexuals are not innocent and are somehow responsible for the epidemic destroying large swathes of Africa.
I'm not sure how you think that there is legitimacy in a sliding scale of suffering and I've no idea where you think aportioning blame will help but that is typical of you, blame blame blame and worklable answers rooted in the dark ages.
There is no connection in your confused analogy re Harvey Milk and AIDS/HIV in Africa but if it makes your bigotry feel better then fine.
And yes, you are a racist.
As for anal sex, I was merely trying to get you to open your sexual pallet, it sounds a little uptight but each to their own, unlike you, people's sexual expression is none of my business.
Sorry to break this to you but humanity's progression and tolerance is not done for reward, it's done becuase it is the right thing to do and as we go on humnaity tries to keep rising the bar, trying to rid itself of the prejudice that holds it back. The "right thing to do?"
Yes, lets "lift the bar". Pinky's past the anus for EVERYBODY! It's "the right thing to do!"
HA HA HA!
Is that the best you've got you homophobe?
How sad that cheap digs is the best yo uhave when you come face to face with coherent argument, no wonder you loved it when I descended to your low level, once K and others take the issues on you are out of your depth.
Brilliant.
Can I also flag that you make up your own straw man arguements from others comments by making your own spin on the text that is in no way reflective of what the person actually said.
HA HA! You're an amusement, offensive but an amusment.
You've surely heard the expression, "Nothing to Excess?" Perhaps one day you'll learn to understand it's meaning.
Scratch that: a bad joke.
Yes, that's a better catch-all for you.
Good old chap.
Nothing to excess?
Black and white rules no use to an advacned human, only for the simple minded, best to find out for yourself, some things are better in excess but then again, you've never been to those heights.
Poor chap, pity you, go on, enjoy yourself.
HA HA!
In quotation marks that is.
Anal sex is devastating Africa. That, and contaminated needles. And homosexuality's role in the spread of AIDS cannot be denied or ignored, no matter how hard you try.
The white men went to the New World and devastated the indigenous cultures with disease, smallpox and syphilis. The "progressive" gay men then go round the world performing a like function.
You're nothing but a plague rat, poofty. Admit it.
Anal sex is devasting Africa?
No it's not FJ you silly man, unprotected hetreosexual sex is devastating Africa.
You do know that HIV/AIDS is spread through sexual contact don't you or do you need to go back to school?
The following fluids can transfer the virus: semen; vaginal fluid; blood; other bodily fluids containing blood (for example,menses, bloody saliva); breast milk.
You should be paying me for all this education.
You do know that more heterosexual people have HIV/AIDS than homosexual people don't you?
Dear me, you're a Bronze Age thinker, why do you hate gay men so much?
Plague rat?
Are you seriously referring to gay men as plague carriers and rats?
Wow, I knew you were a facist but this is strong stuff, ren told me that he doesn't delete your stuff so you can hang yourself with your own bigotry.
Now I see what he means...
Oh and for the record, you do know I'm not gay don't you?
Forget about it, what ever gets you going Know Nothing.
Peter, Peter, Peter. You'll denounce me thrice before the cock crows.
That's one.
My name is not Peter and you're not Jesus, although I'm sure many good Christian folk would be deeply offended by your comparison.
But poofty, who ever said I was a Christian? I'm a Platonist.
Else I wouldn't be standing here poking you with this harpoon.
You're the one quoting Christ, do keep up chap.
Actually, I was paraphrasing Him. You didn't see and quotation marks, did you?
I think it's pretty obvious as to who can't keep up...
Paraphrase Christ but not a Christian?
You need to get some principles old boy but no chance of that.
Just cuz I caught you out no need to get all bitchey.
You must come up with your own put downs too, all you're doing is repeating what I say.
This is too much for you isn't it?
So only a Hindu should paraphrase Ghandi? I suspect that Sanity is a bit too much to ask from you, poofty.
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.--WC
btw - You're aren't a triplet are you, Poofty? Malice and Ignorance would appear to be your brothers.
ps - I'm quoting Churchill... and
fyi - I'm NOT him!
But you believe in his politics, no?
Or do you just quote people you have no faith in at all just becuase they came up in think quote?
Blind leading the blind in your mind.
Wrod verification: trolist
Hey, don't get mad at me for pointing out your defects, clouded judgements and errors.
I'm just the messenger of your weakness, shoot yourself rather than me.
And boy, you retreat quicker from ideas than Bush did from office.
FJ's Christ and Peter quote was, I think, in reference to your denying your own homosexual tendencies, therefore betraying your homosexual brethren.
I'll side with Daniel on this one, FJ, I've read his blog and he does claim to have a girlfriend. Evidently quite a fine one at that. For her sake, I hope he's telling the truth.
If not, you really need to be upfront with her, Daniel. It's easy to assume you're gay by the strident manner in which you defend them. When I first came back to this post, it said there were 143 comments. By the time I hit the comment link, there were 144.
Why the obsession? If you are gay after all, I have no problem with that, but if you are misleading Eva Jane, that is not only wrong, it is abusive. Just saying.
One does not need to believe 100% in another's politics in order to quote them, poofty. If I were to quote Hitler, would that constitute an endorsement of the holocaust?
Where do you get these silly rules of yours, the comic books? Is this what you stuff all your strawmen with?
"Hey, don't get mad at me for pointing out your defects, clouded judgements and errors.
I'm just the messenger of your weakness, shoot yourself rather than me."
There, I just quoted you. That doesn't make us peanut butter pals, poofty.
And now the other idiot wades in...
Ask yourself this, if I was a homosexual and 'in the closet' I would sound more like FJ (ie: homophobic) than someone who is defending the rights of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual people. Defending gay rights is not closet behaviour, it is the behaviour of someone who does like other humans sexuality being subject to lies and harmful slurs.
For supporting gay, lesbian bi-sexual people is not a very 'in the closet' thing to do is it now? And considering that I have made it very clear that I am indeed straight and am in a lovely and loving relationship with my wonderful Eva-Jane that is the end of the matter.
Unless of course, you're a homophobe, use gay as an insult and have a strange obsession with homosexuality being to blame for everything. And I love how if you defend the rights of gay people, by defualt you are gay.
Lincoln was a black man then?
Take care bigots!
You don't believe 100% in anything old bean, which is a shame but to be expected from a block quoter who lacks ideas of their own.
Poor old man, bless you.
Tell you what, how about I stop taking you to the cleaners and let you win one, just one, of these petty debates you like to validate yourself in?
And as I said, "don't get mad at me for pointing out your defects, clouded judgements and errors."
I know it's hard for you to be so badly bested like this and to be treated in this fashion, where none of your ideas are given creedence (forget that, you have no ideas) but do try and keep up.
I do feel sorry for you though.
:-(
That's twice now poofty. Let's go for the trifecta now...
Okay, fine, I've defended gays too, believe it or not, I'm jsut not obsessed with the subject. You even have pictures of obvious fruit flies with slogans under them declaring how "hurtful" homophobic language is. How much time do you put in going around the internet looking for fruit fly pictures to post? HaHaHaHa.
I'm just afraid one of these days you're going to be with Eva Jane and suddenly scream out "Brad" or something.
Really, Daniel, I only have Eva Jane's best interests in mind. And yours, believe it or not. Homophobes do sometimes turn out to be homosexuals, and oftentimes they phase into their true selves by being staunch advocates of gay rights.
Oh, but they're "not gay", of course, it's just the right thing to do.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
It's a shame, Ren said he was going to get a gay blogger to come here and to take on your homophobia, unfortunately it has been left to me to make sure your bigotry, lies and nonsense is challenged at every point.
When are you going to start to make sense?
I hope that your children don't do a Cheney on you and turn out to be gay, becuase they'll lose their father who will no doubt turn his back on them based on their sexuality.
Shame.
"I've defended gays too"
I doubt that very much, mainly because you're a homophobe, you use homphobic langauge and defend homophobic ideas.
As for the rest of your nonsense, didn't read it but I'll repost this:
"Ask yourself this, if I was a homosexual and 'in the closet' I would sound more like FJ (ie: homophobic) than someone who is defending the rights of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual people. Defending gay rights is not closet behaviour, it is the behaviour of someone who does like other humans sexuality being subject to lies and harmful slurs.
For supporting gay, lesbian bi-sexual people is not a very 'in the closet' thing to do is it now? And considering that I have made it very clear that I am indeed straight and am in a lovely and loving relationship with my wonderful Eva-Jane that is the end of the matter.
Unless of course, you're a homophobe, use gay as an insult and have a strange obsession with homosexuality being to blame for everything. And I love how if you defend the rights of gay people, by defualt you are gay.
Lincoln was a black man then?
Take care bigots!"
This is a round robin argument, you tow are homophobes and I'm not.
You tow hate admitting you're bigoted becuase you understand to be thrown by something as simple as sexuality weakens your argument that you are relevent commentators on anything.
Prejudice and being unable to empathise and underatnad others is the major flaw in both of your personalities.
I'm sure that in whatever 'job' you have (if you are employed that is) you can get away with such a lack of humanity but as someone who has volunteered and worked with a whole raft of disadvantaged groups in the UK, you soon learn that such blinkered small minded thinking will not tarry in the real world.
Goold luck you two in getting that humanity back, if you ever had it that is.
"Any-cockle-doooooo!"
Third times the charm, poofty.
If you're not going to read my entire post, that must mean I said something that struck a nerve. Pay attention, Daniel, there will be a test. Or do you just turn into a cowardly jellyfish when someone gets too close to the truth?
Dish it out but can't take it much?
Unless of course, you're a homophobe, use gay as an insult and have a strange obsession with homosexuality being to blame for everything. And I love how if you defend the rights of gay people, by defualt you are gay.
Lincoln was a black man then?
Nice strawman again, poofty.
btw - Have you noticed how Obama's given in to quoting and comparing himself to Lincoln at every turn, lately? I don't suppose he's turned white recently?
FJ:
I think you'll find FJ that the Jesus quote is only effective in your mind and no one elses, bless you, I know it's hard being desperately out of touch but if you keep reading books you'll soon catch up.
And to be clear, you have no charm, again, another feature you are devoid of. As for Obama quoting Lincoln, he does so because he feels a political connection, do keep up old bean, you really don't seem to know your arse from your elbow. On the wine old duck?
PT:
I can't take you seriously because you withdraw from a discussion with a fanfare, then re-engagem, then withdraw, as if your prescence or lack of makes a difference.
I'm sensing that your own jealousies of me are consuming and they test you, I am glad that I can inpsire you and encourage you to greater heights of humnanity.
You start low so the only way is up. All the best on your journey and I await you leaving this discussion with fanfare.
Perhaps on a tuba?
Changed my mind, a bassoon is more fitting.
Daniel-
You seem best suited for the upright organ.
And you're dancing to the organ grinders tune monkey boy.
Flugelhorn.
What? Did Obama start commenting here? Oh, I forget, Bush is the one you guys call The Chimp.
Thankfully, policy makers do not frequent here.
'you guys'
Black and white politics again?
Oh dear, anywho:
As fun as this besting of you two is, the serious matter is that Ren will not post again until this stops, to quote him:
"I'm not posting anything, until its safe to."
How soon is now?
Hey I stopped a long time ago, but it just gets rolling along. What's the use? You enjoy this shit, Daniel, if you didn't you'd stop. But you won't, so there it is. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there were two hundred comments by the time I get back on here tomorrow, or for that matter by the time I go to bed at night. And that is whether I add anything else or not.
The cock has crowed, poofty, and now only the blue fairy can turn you into a real boy.
ps - Charms are for the temperate, poofty. Didn't you ever read Plato's "Charmides"? Your ignorance of classical themes really is appalling. Maybe you should have attended class instead of prancing about the stage in your tutu...
No, don't enjoy it but I hate prejudice being left unchallenged so I have to challenge it, it'd be same face to face, although I doubt either of you two clowns would spout this shit in public.
Insert lyrics to 'Attitude' here.
The imaginary cock in your pants you mean old boy?
Withered old stubby thing hanging forth, pity you poor old boy.
I hope you get to step put from the closet soon and bask in your gayness and celebrate your sexuality, unitl then I'll support you on your tough journey.
Do take care little chap!
There you go insulting somebody by calling him gay. Now what do you have to say for yourself?
Also, I seriously doubt that you would walk up to some stranger in public and call him an ignorant bigot because of some off-hand remark you overheard.
Then again, maybe you would, that could be why you've got such an ugly fucking mug, it's been smashed in a few too many times.
When are you going to learn, Daniel. You can't touch this.
Not an insult Pagan you silly boy, just based on FJ's deep set loathing of homosexuals he is displaying repressed tendencies and I am here for him.
Funny how those most mean-spirited jump on it whenever they think they see someone else doing it. It must be hard being as flawed as you?
"You can't touch this"
What makes you think anyone wants to? Poor sod aren't you?
Oh and Pagan darling, when you stop being a coward and hiding behind fake names and fake pictures then you can sling mud but until then, do try and play a fitting role in this, as FJ's sidekick.
French horn.
Okay, I'm through. I have an idea. I extended an invitation to Ren and Beak both a while back to join a group blog where they could go at each other to their hearts content. I'll make the same offer for you and FJ. Matter of fact, I'd like to get a few people involved, from different backgrounds, to post whatever they want and go at each other. Let me know if you're interested. I'm thinking of calling it The Fight Club.
That way we can go at each other and give poor Ren a break. Are you in?
No, I've no interest in trolls, I've been part of this blog community here far longer than you two.
I go back to what Ren asked:
"I'm not posting anything, until its safe to."
How soon is now?
It's all a zero sum game with poofty. Typical nihilistic behavior.
Nietzsche, "Genealogy of Morals"
We simply cannot conceal from ourselves what is really expressed by that total will which received its direction from the ascetic ideal: this hate against what is human, even more against animality, even more against material things—this abhorrence of the senses, of reason itself, this fear of happiness and beauty, this longing for the beyond away from all appearance, change, becoming, death, desire, even longing itself—all this means, let’s have the courage to understand this, a will to nothingness, an aversion to life, a revolt against the most fundamental preconditions of life—but it is and remains a will! . . . And to finish up by repeating what I said at the beginning: man will sooner will nothingness than not will . . .
All those poor suffering homosexuals. There has to have been a reason for it. Ahhhh, so that man can "progress" to sticking his pinky up his bum, and giggling while he wiggles it.
Okay, then, just thought I'd ask. If you ever change your mind, ditch your self-loathing, and build up a bit of courage, let me know.
The pair of you can really fuck off, seriously, you throw aorund words you don't understand the impact of then use more words that you don't even understand.
This isn't about having a go at anyone, this is about me frequenting this blog for years and then two spammers come along and troll and then their ideas are challenged they engage in last word-ism becuase they must be unemployed and have nowt better to do.
This isn't debate.
And where ever I see people using bigoted language I say so.
Simple as.
It's not about fighting, it's about challenging bigotry.
And Pagan you fucking mug, self-loathing and lack of courage? COme back to me when you make a living standing up infront of 100s of people and when you don;t hide your real name and personal details on your blog you fanny.
FJ:
I will win, you will lose.
Take care.
To be clear:
Ren has aksed for this to stop otherwise he doesn't blog, so the nub is, how much do you two want this blog under and to silence views you don't hold?
The irony is, by Ren not silencing the trolling and letting it have air he is putting his blog at risk.
The responsibility is yours, act now.
I've spoken to Ren about you FJ and the honour of his beliefs, ie: letting your comments stand is much more than many would afford you.
You abuse this trust and postion.
Why?
You should be grateful he lets you comment here, many others would not be so lenient and liberal, yourself included, who would shut down any opposing voices.
You will win, poofty? Then we all lose.
It's funny how it's "the other guy" who always has to be responsible, keep his d*ck in his pants and NOT spread AIDS. It's the other guy who has to raise his kids responsibly and force them to avert their eyes from the sounds coming from the third stall of the Men's room at the US Rt 32 Rest Stop.
Fortunately, I'm not responsible for what you choose to do with your life, nor are you responsible for what I choose to do with mine. But if you're going to ask me to behave "responsibily," you'd better ask nicely and not ask having no intention of behaving responsibly yourself.
So poofty, go take a hike. If you want me to behave responsibly, you'll have to convince me that it's in my best interest to do so... by behaving responsibly and reciprocating for a change. Otherwise... tootles.
You have no idea what winning and losing means.
Also, I'm not sure what your homophobic little belch was about but quite frankly, if you thinkt hat passes for reasoned argument then you're thicker than I thought.
Which makes you fucking thick.
Gay activists approaching the "Holy Grail" of the gay marriage movement... a federal tax break.
Why do married heterosexuals need a tax break? To defer the extra expenses of raising children. Why do homosexuals need a federal tax break? To buy KY-Jelly and leather dungeon gear.
I hear that Roland Burris is being attacked again, poofty. How come you're not out defending him from all the racists?
You don't approve of Mr. Burris?
Have no interest at the mo in this chap.
I thought this was a film thread.
Oh well, Slumdog Millionaire sucks the gas pipe.
What really sucks is the University of California Santa Cruz doing a complete restoration of the works of Satyajit Ray and douchebag Sony pictures holds on to the distribution rights.
If you want a description of poverty and life in India the gold standard is still "Pather Panchali" but Sony pictures (freaking capitalist stooges) holds the marketing rights and we are denied a decent print of the masterpiece.
Meanwhile, we get Danny "My camera work sucks" Boyle.
Freakin' bites.
FJ: Wait until Ducky comes online, and finds your dissing Shostakovitch.
-----------------------
I PITY THE FOOL.
Who dissed Shotsky?
You did, about 8 years ago in some thread or another, no doubt back at comment 74 or summat...
All I did was point to Stalin's repression of Shotsky as an example of what happens when you overly politicize the arts.
Does anyone deny this?
That's why I'm not into the "Internationalist" project of giving major film awards to "politcally correct" films like "Milk" and trying to "punish" producers like Mel Gibson for being out of step with the political elites.
Right on. I won't comment on Milk, as I haven't seen it, but Gibson's Passion Of The Christ was a great flick, and as for his last movie, it was slammed by people such as university sociologists who demanded Gibson apologize to the Maya, for doing no more, evidently, than portraying the facts as to how bloodthirsty that ancient culture was. What the hell should he have apologized for?
please not arch anti-semite mel gibson...
Has nothing to do with the quality of his films.
I suspect that imaginary cases of racism and faux-social repression represent the only issues the Left thinks it has left. What do you think, PT?
PT:
nothing to do with the quality, aside from effecting the content in the Passion of Christ which, depending upon your views, thus effected the quality.
The joy of art is how highly subjective it is, there is no definitve measure of greatness, there is no perfection, there is just wonderful and sometimes not so wonderful failure.
FJ:
Hate to break it to you but racism is not imaginary and neither is social repression at all faux.
As for issue that this mysterious 'left' has to deal with, there are plenty and you would sneer at the boiling down of an imaginary 'right' being obsessed with just abortion and school prayer.
Rightly so becuase such generalised politics is as useless as it is inaccurate.
Cheers.
Daniel-
That's not exactly accurate. Passion Of The Christ was a generally accurate portrayal of the events described in the Gospel of John dealing solely with the events leading up to and including the crucifixion of Christ. Whether those events were historical or mythological is a different matter, but as a rendition of the Gospel it was a very devout and faithful portrayal, though with a bit of artistic license, which is to be expected.
Any ant-Semitic content is taken verbatim from the Gospels, and is probably more accurately viewed not so much as racist on the part of those original authors as it was a slam at the general religious society of the day-the Pharisees in general and those who supported them.
Apocalypto, on the other hand, while there is some historical flaws as regards the time line of certain historical events, is an accurate rendition of Meso-American culture at its bloodiest. Gibson's and the films detractors complain about the film focused on that aspect while ignoring the notable contributions of the Maya in various different fields, notably astronomy, math, art, and architecture, but this is not the focus of the film. Understandably so, as the film is portrayed as through the eyes of an intended victim of a mass sacrificial rite. That is the context of the main character, and everything then is filtered through his mind and thoughts.
To do otherwise would be be like making a movie about a Jew being paraded on his way to a train to Auschwitz taking the time to ruminate on the wonders of modern German technology and great German composers and philosophers over the centuries. It would be ridiculous.
The point of Gibson's film was the culture of death and corruption which had permeated that society, which in turn rendered anything worthwhile all the more grotesque. Yes, it contained a Christian message that manifested at the end (thus the aforementioned problem with the film's time line).
The point to all this being, its fine to disagree with Gibson's views on society and question the message of his films, but its something else all together to just dismiss it as anti-Semitic or bigoted propaganda without taking the time to view his works in their totality without any honest consideration for the artistic merits.
I can only comment on 'The Passion' as I have no interest in and have not seen the other film.
'The Passion' was not a verbatim take on the relevent section/sections of the bible but rather an interpretation of the relevent section/sections, an artistic intepretation that was coloured by Gibson's beliefs.
Which is fine but it made for a poor film.
In art there are no absolutes, just opinions. You dug the film, I didn't.
Simple as.
FJ-
The main problem with the Left, at least as I see it, is they want the government to control anything and everything. Though they see them as doing this "for the people", they are willing to give up far too much and in the long run I fear we would get precious little in return, and would give up far more exponentially.
Those who give up their freedom to the state are handing their fate over to the control of future potential tyrants. Then it's too late to cry about it.
This 'left' you speak of does not exist, just as a homogenised 'right' does not exist.
Generalisations like this do no favours to either side.
Danny, best leave the question as to what does or does not "exist" to those of us who possess a more accute understanding of both ontologies and absolutes. For unless you can follow Plato's "Parmenides" and "Sophist" dialogues you've no business opening your mouth on either subject.
And if there were no valid "generalized" distinctions between left and right, the PoMo New Left wouldn't have had to invent the term "social justice" to distinguish their moral sensibilities from those of the modern-classical liberals who preceded them and emphasized the "individualized" form employing the singular term "justice".
And I agree with you, PT, that the Left does tend to lean upon the force-full expedient we know as 'government' much more than the more than the wiser and relatively self-sufficient generations that preceded them.
I'm merely pointing out that the straw man you've built to destroy doesn't exist.
There are some generalisations but you do not talk in some, or maybe, you talk in absolute which means you are, unfortunately, wrong and your arguements lose weight.
And you would say the same if such over-reaching was used with the term 'Rightists'.
One rule for you I think?
Daniel-
There's a lot of validity to your argument, in that the majority of people, even those that tend to identify solidly as with one party or another, actually tend to be more toward the center of the political spectrum. They can be moved in either direction, depending on the prevailing circumstances at any given time. The actual hard right and hard left does exist, and are the more immovable objects/irresistible forces.
It's just so unfortunate that, at least in the US, the parties tend to come to be dominated by the hard core leftists and rightists. There are any number of reasons for this, having mainly to do with funding, voting drives, and dependability at the voting booth. Still, either one, hard left or right, is solidly in the minority.
That is why neither party will ever secure a true mandate, and is very mistaken to assume they do just because fortune is with them over the course of one election cycle.
In America, no party ever has enough political capital to push forward the entirety of their agenda. They might have the votes in a transient sense, but the overall goodwill of the American people as a whole is a very fickle thing.
Post a Comment