|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 15:08:33 GMT -5
Yeah, that last day of Vacation is the worst... Especially traveling from Europe to United States and be on the plane 18 to 24 hours at a time and traveling many time zones that really throw you off in a big way. I've done this 5 times in my life and every time I do this it's takes me 2-3 days to recover and adjust for it and that's a hard thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 24, 2017 15:37:00 GMT -5
There is coming a time when feee speech will be gone. I think speaking fees given out by corporate America are pretty evil myself, so I hope you're right.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 24, 2017 18:23:11 GMT -5
There is coming a time when feee speech will be gone. I think speaking fees given out by corporate America are pretty evil myself, so I hope you're right. Ha. Corrected.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Oct 24, 2017 20:46:42 GMT -5
Entertaining any type of thought or series of thoughts within your mind no matter how distasteful, unethical, unlawful or immoral is not wrong. As long as you keep your delusions to yourself and don't act upon them within the realm of reality and risk jeopardizing someone (that has shown you no ill-will) else's personal well being. That's a BIG problem I see among certain groups right now, and especially (alas) among groups with whom I share a lot of fundamental ideals. They seem to believe that a thought police is a good thing. That it's not enough to agree that certain ideas would be disastrous for society, or that they are fundamentally wrong, but that even entertaining them is wrong and should not be tolerated. The concept of goodthink (as in the novel 1984) is one that scares the hell out of me. I think that some ideas must be fought tooth and nail, but if they must be fought they must first be freely expressed. Otherwise we'll never prove that they're wrong; we'll just silence those who hold them. And who's to say, in a system that accepts such behaviour, that we won't find ourselves silenced for holding our own ideas some day? Do you think this is a more rampant issue in more recent times than others? Or is it just cycling around for this generation. Honestly curious. Especially from someone outside the US.
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Oct 25, 2017 2:02:03 GMT -5
People shouldn't look their nose down on those who decide to end their life, regardless of circumstance. There, said it.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 25, 2017 4:42:20 GMT -5
People shouldn't look their nose down on those who decide to end their life, regardless of circumstance. There, said it. Life is valuable and precious. I do recognize that people in terrible physical pain want it to end, but It's hard to stand by while someone commits suicide.
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 16,401
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 25, 2017 5:24:14 GMT -5
That's a BIG problem I see among certain groups right now, and especially (alas) among groups with whom I share a lot of fundamental ideals. They seem to believe that a thought police is a good thing. That it's not enough to agree that certain ideas would be disastrous for society, or that they are fundamentally wrong, but that even entertaining them is wrong and should not be tolerated. The concept of goodthink (as in the novel 1984) is one that scares the hell out of me. I think that some ideas must be fought tooth and nail, but if they must be fought they must first be freely expressed. Otherwise we'll never prove that they're wrong; we'll just silence those who hold them. And who's to say, in a system that accepts such behaviour, that we won't find ourselves silenced for holding our own ideas some day? Do you think this is a more rampant issue in more recent times than others? Or is it just cycling around for this generation. Honestly curious. Especially from someone outside the US. It has always been so, but I get the impression that current communication technologies (and mostly the internet, making our social relations quicker, more widespread and less personal) make it more apparent. Citizens 2.0 are now on a semi-permanent soapbox, and are watched by a large number of people whose opinion seems to matter to them; they are often given no option but to either loudly protest the hash tag crise du jour or to be seen as Nazi collaborators. (I exaggerate, but not that much).
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 25, 2017 5:39:18 GMT -5
People shouldn't look their nose down on those who decide to end their life, regardless of circumstance. There, said it. I hope that everything is okay for you.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,560
|
Post by Confessor on Oct 25, 2017 6:11:25 GMT -5
Not that I've seen any of the recent films with Wonder Woman in, mind, but Gal Godot just seems to me to have entirely the wrong body shape for Wonder Woman. She's supposed to be an Amazon warrior and, as such, should be big, tall, curvaceous and look like she could actually do you some damage in a fight. There, I said it! You may well change your mind once you see the movie. She was amazing. That's entirely possible, of course. But I saw a trailer for the forthcoming JLA film and was struck again by how puny she looks, which is what prompted my original post. Besides, as envisioned by original artist Harry Peter, Diana was anything but "curvaceous." I have to disagree with you there. As envisioned by Harry Peter, WW is definitely possessed of the curvy, hourglass figure that was considered desirable in the 1940s. I mean a quick Google image search for Harry Peter Wonder Woman gives plenty of examples of Diana looking curvy, if not downright stocky! And certainly later artists in the Bronze Age and modern age went with a curvy figure.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 25, 2017 6:15:16 GMT -5
I really enjoyed the Wonder Woman Movie. It might be the best DC movie in the last 10 years. Her body type is a non issue because it's all magic and Mythology.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Oct 25, 2017 11:54:00 GMT -5
Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised by the Wonder Woman movie, enjoyed it for the most part, and Gadot's performance was a big part of what i liked about it - so the issue of whether her physique was suited to the role really never occurred to me.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 27, 2017 12:04:36 GMT -5
Not that I've seen any of the recent films with Wonder Woman in, mind, but Gal Godot just seems to me to have entirely the wrong body shape for Wonder Woman. She's supposed to be an Amazon warrior and, as such, should be big, tall, curvaceous and look like she could actually do you some damage in a fight. There, I said it! I have the same feeling about Gadot but I haven't seen any of the last several DC movies yet either. I might try to watch at least one of them before the new JLA movie comes out, since I have been planning to try that one. I'll see if her performance in JLA wins me over. My hopes aren't too high, since everyone seemed to like the previews for WW and they didn't do anything for me. edit: forgot to add, I have the same feeling with regard to super-heroines as they are drawn by most artists in the comics themselves. Most artists render them as fashionably slender, but I think the artist should be trying to convey that impression of strength and power, as well as attractiveness. But I suppose this is something that should be on the Classic Comics board proper rather than here.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 12:14:45 GMT -5
Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised by the Wonder Woman movie, enjoyed it for the most part, and Gadot's performance was a big part of what i liked about it - so the issue of whether her physique was suited to the role really never occurred to me. She looked like she was having fun! And that came across & made her performance more enjoyable for me.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Oct 29, 2017 3:26:35 GMT -5
Michael James: that's it exactly!
By the way, completely unconnected, but I noticed that as of today or yesterday, it says "Full Member" under my name instead of "Junior Member" or something like that. How is that determined? Duration of membership, or number of posts?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 7:16:18 GMT -5
Michael James: that's it exactly! By the way, completely unconnected, but I noticed that as of today or yesterday, it says "Full Member" under my name instead of "Junior Member" or something like that. How is that determined? Duration of membership, or number of posts? Number of posts. You passed your 100th post, so went form junior to full. -M
|
|