HoboFactory

There are many video games that would make great movies if they'd stick to the actual story lines. Resident Evil is a perfect example of what NOT to do. Sure, some videogames have more substance than others, so I suppose some lend themselves better to making movies from, but it's rare and it's still probably not a good idea and something of a lose-lose situation. If you follow the plot of the game closely in a movie, then "if you've played the game, you've already seen the movie" so why bother watching the film at all? I liked the storyline of the Half-Life games, but I probably wouldn't want to see it as a movie if it was all just the same stuff happening, only in a somehow more cinematically-appropriate fashion. At the same time, if the film deviates from the plot of the game excessively, then the people who would most likely see it (fans of the game) would be disappointed and complain that it was nothing like the game. It would probably be even harder if you're basing a show or a movie on a commerical, because, a commerical is guaranteed to have little substance for basis, and you have to take a joke, a joke with the same exact theme mind you, and somehow build a season of 30-minute episodes focusing on it.

Problem is, when making a show or a movie, it never works when you're drawing from a source that doesn't have that much substance to it. It's the same reason why movies based on videogames aren't really any good. Besides, how tiresome would it be to watch episode upon episode of the cavemen being bothered by the Geico slogan in some form or another?

Frankly 1 album is too many.

But to truly accomplish a world with religious inclination, be it spiritual, political, economic, or what have you... you'd have to apply the same oppression and control over people that religion has. One can't truly get rid of it, without becoming it. The Nazi analogy doesn't really prove anything for a number of reasons. First off, fighting the Nazis as a global and military effort, that is, all they could do to get rid of it is to kill as many of them as possible. On top of that, it's not like the Allies fought the Nazis to save the Jews or something like that, after all, there were political, self-defense, and economic issues the played the biggest factor. If the plight of a certain ethnicity mattered to the global community, the Chinese probably wouldn't be holding Tibet today.

There are TON of movies that I thought were over-rated. To name a few: Scarface, Lost in Translation, Napoleon Dynamite, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Spartan

It's not a matter of knowing more scripture, or memorizing more verses, but it doesn't seem prudent to attack something if you don't know a great deal about it. Otherwise it's a lot like one of those fellows on that "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" site that said, something along the lines of, "I don't need to know much about Darwin or evolution to know that they're wrong." There's also a difference between "bugging" moderates, or debating/discussing with them and just plain attacking them and their standpoints. Sure, people get passionate when they argue about something, but if you go around saying "you're all dangerous idiots that shouldn't exist" then they think you're just a douche and not worth listening to. A hardcore fundamentalist probably won't listen to facts or reason, nor will they back down if attacked. With moderates, there's a lot more room for discussion and debate, but again, outright attack will get absolutely nowhere. The air of superiority, sort of like Moonlight mentioned, this need to "convert people to a superior belief (or ubelief)" is also counterproductive. You may hold what you think to be superior, but religious people also hold their beliefs to be superior, so when each "side" just bickers and rages back and forth with their "I'm better than you" attitude, nothing will ever get done. I never meant that everyone is religious, but societies are subject to thinking in a religious sense. This doesn't mean they incline towards a belief in gods or supernatural beings but that can develop a mass religious-like devotion. For isntance i,n the USSR, they tried to do away with pretty much all religion. They imprisoned Christians, deported/relocated Jews, supressed many of the native Siberian tribes, eliminated their beliefs and forced them to learn and speak Russian, and so on. But at the same time, the communist regime itself became something a lot like a religion, even if it didn't involve fanciful miracles. It's just as possible for there to be a religion that's also atheist. I also agree with Moonlight on the whole "lying to children" thing. I'm sure it's definitely not some devious plot that parents have that, where they just deliberately lie. Since the parents themselves believe their faith to be true, they teach it to their kids. When these kids grow up and become adults that are capable of thinking for themselves, then they simply re-assess and adjust their beliefs accordingly. Think about how many former religious people are now atheists or agnostics, and coversely how many former atheists and agnostics are now religious.

The video for "Dashboard" is out... it's pretty bizarre, but I like it. http://musicbox.sonybmg.com/video/modest_mouse/

But clearly far from all Muslims do adhere to it, even in the Middle East. I think youp probably DO need to know a lot about a given religion's teachings before you can argue with it, not necessarily to make certain of whether it's true or something like that, but to make sure you've the full picture and aren't making arguments that could easily be refuted by someone who simply knows more on the subject. Even if you're making an argument using a fact, a fact without a full and proper context can still make for fallacious arguments. Just like if a creationist was to argue, "Evolution is a falsehood because if people come from apes, why are there still apes?" Such an argument would just be demonstrative of an insufficient understanding of evolution rather than it being a flaw in evolutionary theory. That isn't to say that your analysis of Islam is that grievous of an oversimplification, but I think with an admittedly limited knowledge of the subject at hand, it's not an authoritative analysis. Sure an individual can lose faith, but conversely, a person can gain faith as well. Sure it's immoral to not do something about so potentially dangerous a situation, but at the same time nothing can really be done. Have you ever talked to a hardcore Islamic fundamentalist? Suppose tomorrow you could get a sit-down with the president of Iran. How productive do you think that debate would be? You could throw all of your most sensible arguments, use all of the rationality and logic you're capable of mustering, and such an individual would still say you're just an infidel who has been deceived by Satan. In contrast you may able to shake the belief of a moderate, since if they are simply "closet agnostics" as you once put it, but it's not the closet agnostics that make it their aim to kill people in the name of Allah, after all murder/suicide is a pretty big investment to make in a belief if you only think of it as kinda-sorta true. In regards to the murder analogy, what I meant is, that yes, murder is a problem, and people can/should do something about it, but the only reason something can be done is because murder is generally done by an individual or group, and so a society is able to decide it's wrong, and to make efforts to control it. But because a society is what decides what is right and wrong within it, and the society is what is subject to religious thinking in one form or another wouldn't be able to do away with its nature... (IMO).

Damn... blows even more than either Tool or APC.

I read an article recently on CNN, in which some mother in England feeds her son nothing but junk food because he doesn't like anything healthy. The kid is 8 years old and weighs like 200 lb's (91kg). So social workers debated whether or not the mother should be able to keep custody, even though she refused to lock the fridge and all that. In the end, they allowed her to keep the kid, but apparently had her agree to some plan for change. It's kind of an intersting issue. Obesity is not only something deemed physically unattractive in modern society, but it also poses a multitude of dangers to health such as heart disease and diabetes. In all likelihood, it will all boil down to a public health disaster, and not just in the UK either. Not only are parents who allow/cause their kids to get into such a state doing them a disservice in terms of social well being, but also multiplying their future risks for medical problems. The sad thing is, it's not somehow extremely rare, just the other day on the train I take to school, I saw a (very large) mother feeding her baby BBQ-style chips. She also had a toddler with her that too was clearly grossly obese. It becomes obvious that the reason kids don't like eating healthy is because they're given crap and become accustomed to it before they're even able to speak. I think, in the interest of the kid's well being, someone like social services should definitely be able to use the prospect of taking away custody from a parent. Obviously the parent should be given a choice, either to make drastic changes (no excuses, none of that "but he/she doesn't like it" crap) and if they're not willing to make such a change, they're not fit parents. I would think, when faced with that kind of choice, the parent will choose to make the change the majority of the time, and if not, that is if someone is THAT committed to making sure their kid is a heart-attack waiting to happen, then the kid is likely to be better off with someone else.

I've read what ya put, what I meant wasn't that you've said everything that could be said on the subject... but you have said essentially everything you're saying in this thread in other posts, only this time citing specific examples. Basically summed up, if I'm understanding you correctly: "X, Y, and Z are examples of violent teachings in Islam, therefore, anyone who is a true Muslim should adhere to said teachings. If they don't, then they're stupid and make the world a bad place since they live in some sort of nonsensical disconnection betwen their beliefs and their actions." The "filthy" thing was just an example of the belittling tone you've used in talking about religious people in general throughout the other threads and posts. I think the arrogance thing comes from the air of superiority, for instance, assuming you know more about the practice and principles of Islam than Muslims do. Have you ever talked to a Muslim about these things, particularly if they're well-versed in their doctrine. I very much doubt they'll just cop out and tell you, "Well, some of that stuff is pretty much optional" or something like that. It's not as defeatist as saying "murder will always exist so why bother?" because preventing or punishing murder is something that applies to an individual or a group, but prevention and punishment is decided upon and carried out by the society. In contrast, with religion or mass delusion or whatever you wanna call it, it applies to the masses, but the control of it would also fall to the masses. So to make the murder scenario analogous, it would be like allowing the murderer to decide whether or not murder is wrong and if/how the murderer should be punished. No one is above a society, unless it's a different and perhaps more powerful society, so there is not way it can be kept "in check."

Ah. My mistake then.

What other reason is needed other than you've said it all before on a couple of threads on the past few days and so the repitition is just well, demonstrative of some sort of arrogant frustration. I mean why bother with the, "Ooooh look everybody, the teachings of Islam really ARE violent and extreme! Those moderate Muslims are just filthy hypocrites and they make the world a bad place!" As you know, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims throughout the world. Are you saying you'd feel better about it all if instead of a minority of Muslims genuinely making it their goal to kill infidels and follow the above-mentioned teachings that every single Muslim on the planet would make such an effort (because at least then they'd not be hypocritical moderates)? Religion will last forever in some form or another. Maybe there will be a time when Islam, Christianity, etc will no longer be practiced, but there will be other things to take their place. Maybe not involving some supernatural being(s), it could be a religious devotion to a state (as we've seen with communism), or even to something like scientific logic, as illustrated in Zamyatin's "We". I'm not sure if you've read that one, but one of the points it expresses is that, you can do away with what we think of as religion today, you can potentially bring on an era when everyone thinks of as God as some fairy tale, like we think of Hades or whoever else in the present, but there will be some new subject of religion-like devotion to take the place.

Well what I mean is this is like the 3rd thread that's something of a long-winded, arrogant anti-religious spiel from you. It's silly in that there's all this anger over something that can't and won't ever really be different.

No, not you.

Are you always on?

Maybe Rammstein... they've been doing quite well lately in Europe from what I hear, and probably not bad in the US for a German band. Plus they've been together since 93/94 (but didn't release a successful album until 94/95). They haven't so much as changed any band members sincxe they started. In contrast to one of their rival bands, Megaherz, which since its start in early 90's no longer has any of its original members.

Well shit now... now I've lost respect for a few people here and their terrible choices.

I guess since there are first times for everything, I also agree with heyrabbit here, except that I probably won't go out to see it. It's definitely been a stale show for the last few years, and that trailer doesn't make it seem like it's a significant step up. They should've been like M*A*S*H, in that the cast noticed the show was in danger of getting tiresome and stale, so they chose to end it. Made a really good and big impression with the viewers.

I've noticed that even with my favorites albums there's always at least a couple of songs that I just don't want to listen through, and so I end up skipping them. It seems no matter how good an album is, there always has to be something like that each and every time. For instance, on LOTGA, I usually skip Vermillion, and always skip Alabama Motel Room. It got me thinking as to whether or not there's really a totally perfect album, on which every song is as listenable to (or close) as the next. Naturally it's a matter of taste, but I was curious as to which, if any, albums people think are actually perfect. It's not a question of whether it's a great album, or a favorite, but whether or not you think it's actually perfect. So... discuss.

So you're saying only Christians voted for Bush, and Christians voted only for Bush?

Well, the process for forming beliefs is not yet understood at the level of the brain. We really don't know all the ins and outs of how a person develops a belief and what affects that the process. It's possible to be so well educated that you can operate a 747, yet still believe that you'll get the 72 virgins in heaven. It's possible to be so intelligent that you can become a neurosurgeon, operate on the brains of others, and yet still believe that god will descend from the heavens in less than 50 years. Clearly, there occurs some partitioning of the mind which we do not yet understand. What I think is that our mind could be like a binary system. We could have a series of beliefs which collectively dictates our actions. Sometimes we might believe in the possibility of something. And there's a massive difference between kind of believing something and believing in the possibility of something. That's just something I've thought about but haven't read into very much. Beliefs are positive, not negative, in other words, you either have them or you don't. You can hope that you've won the lottery but it's not until you've actually won that the flood-gates of emotion are opened and your mental state is drastically altered, affecting your future actions.(paraphrased sam harris). So I don't think beliefs should be measured in "kind of's" and "sort of's" - we likely have thousands and millions of individual beliefs that shape our opinion as a whole. The terms "Extreme belief" and "moderate belief" are entirely tautological in nature. The belief that your soul will ascend directly to paradise after you've blown up a discotheque full of innocents, for instance, is not an extreme belief. It's an entirely rational belief given that you believe in the validity of the Quran. The belief that homosexuals are sinners is not an extreme belief if you're a Christian. It might be extremely different from other beliefs - and that may be the case in some instances - but it's not in the case of Islam. How are these beliefs any more "extreme" than believing jesus was born of a virgin? We've placed connotations on these words and we've assigned them to the beliefs that we decide are bad. There is really nothing extreme about those beliefs apart from the labels we've placed on them. We might say that one belief is more dangerous than the other, but I'm arguing that they're all religious belief is dangerous because the "moderate" beliefs, however you define them, allow the "extreme" beliefs to exist. There's an irony in "moderate" religion. The more you try to pacify the forces of reason, and the more "middle ground" you take, your world-view becomes more and more irrational. Fundamentalists at least offer reasons for their beliefs. If you ask a suicide bomber - while he's alive of course- what his reasons are for his actions, he will tell you exactly what the reasons are. They are not good reasons, but they are reasons. Moderates will just babble casuistry. The more reasonable they try to be the less reasonable their faith becomes. When will people realize that fundamentalism isn't the problem, it's the fundamentals of certain religions that are the problem. The world would be a better place if everyone in the middle east were fundamental Jainists. Those Islamists are most likely from North America. And there is a huge difference between the two cultures. You've got it the other way around. Anyone who says that suicides and murder is not apart of Islam, they've either never read the Quran or they're lying. The Quran explicitly and repeatedly calls for murder and suicide. There are dozens of quotes encouraging these actions and only one ambiguous quote which could be construed as a denouncement of these actions. The suicide bombers have got the doctrine on their side. You don't need to try to figure why they're doing it. THEY TELL US! They're doing it for god's sake. But everyone keeps ignoring it. "Why, why are they doing this, surely not for god". Yes, they're not stupid. they're economically oppressed. They're Islamists. tell us over and over and we ignore them. The fact that moderate religion is illogical is beside the point... if moderate religion is a lack of full conviction in the teachings of a certain religion, how does it cause full conviction? How are moderates more responsible for "allowing extremists to exist" than anyone else? How is it more sensible to say, if moderate religion was gone, extremism would go away too as opposed to saying ...well... if extremism would go away, well then extremism would go away? In either case it's a totally unrealistic outlook, in that denying the right to exist for religion would make the denier just bad as the institutions they seek to destroy. But religion will probably never be any less popular on a global level, as I'm reasonably certain that many, if not most, religious groups do continue to grow.

Sounds vaguely familiar, but yeah, that's a safe assumption to make.

6/10 just not the sort of imagery that appeals to me for some reason or another.

Maybe it's because I was fairly young at the time, but I found it sort of odd and a little unnerving that the show played on the potential for some sort of romantic involvement between the human characters and the puppets.