Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on September 20, 2004, 02:32:30 am
-
I fu[color=3423][/color]cking despise this film.
I watched 5 minutes and the only emotion it evoked in me was the overwhelming desire to cut Napoleon's throat and then immediately slit my own wrists, just to make sure.
After forcing myself to watch another 10 minutes, all I can say is that I'd rather be ****ed in the ass by a Gorilla than sit through any more of that utter and complete ****e.
I'd rather live in a world without Keira Knightley than have to suffer another second of that garbage.
That's how much I completely and unremittingly hate that dog****, ass-sucking, cock-smoking pile of severed animal rectum they dare to call a film.
It'd rather have a glass-shard enema than watch it.
I'd rather have ants inserted into my urethra with a 2-inch diameter hose than spend another instant having that tripe inflicted on my psyke.
I cannot possibly stress how much I am disgusted that this **** even made it out of the camera without bursting into flames.
I would rather sit and watch Love Actually back to back with BEN ELTON SKETCHES than be emotionally and PHYSICALLY scarred by that heap of sheep feces - Napoleon Dynamite.
-
Would you like those in that particular order or can we mix things up a bit?
-
You can do them simultaneously for all I care, just promise me you'll firebomb any cinema showing that crime against humanity.
It's so bad, it make the holocaust look like a walk in the ****ing park.
-
So, are you saying you don't like it then?
-
It's so bad, I refuse to even joke about it.
Honest to God, I have never even imagined that a film could be so utterly ****ing painful.
-
I got that feeling watching the previews. Thank god my common sense still works
-
I actually heard it was funny.....guess not
-
Several people I know saw it and loved it. I personally haven't seen it.
-
ATM I'm using this sentence to describe why people keep talking about it:
Some people like Tom Green.
-
wtf is it about?
-
I saw it. It was sort of funny, but it just made me really depressed. I also enjoyed it less because my friends had out-voted me on seeing De-Lovely instead.
-
Never heard of it, but it sounds like that Jack Nicholson comedy, the name of which I can't remember, but the first 15 minutes were so depressing to watch, I never bothered watching the rest of it.
-
the Life of Schmidt?
man, that was a boring/depressing movie.
Never saw Napolean Dynamite, but I just might now, for the sole reason that anon hates it.
-
Feel free.
You might think it's a fun way to spite me, but you'll only be hurting yourself. And I'm all for Darwinism.
-
That last part is going to spark raging fires...
-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374900/
it gots a 7.3 of 10
-
That movie wasn't all that great. But still...it didn't make my eyes bleed that much.
Ready the wicket and ice the spleens, jackityjoe.
EDIT: I fully agree with the concept of Darwinism. Some haven't evolved beyond simian-state, sadly. Especially this one guy in my world history class...poor sad little niave freak.
-
Oh yeah, I've found a fool-proof way to destroy creationist arguments.
-
I suppose said method involves a hatchet.
-
Either that, or this movie...
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
I suppose said method involves a hatchet.
At the bottom of your post it says "last edited by Setekh"...what else involving a hatchet did you post? :D
You should know from the request thread that when admins edit posts, that tag doesn't appear after the edit. ;) // Setekh
-
Ugh. Tool. He put tha... err.. never mind.
And the film is only 82 minutes long? wtf?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Ugh. Tool. He put tha... err.. never mind.
And the film is only 82 minutes long? wtf?
That means you only have to suffer for a short amount of time. :p
-
The fool-proof way to destroy Creationism lies within their own logic.
Everything in the Bible is taken as being 100% true. No metaphors. No synonyms. All word-for-word accurate, God's honest truth.
And they also state that all animals were created and no biological adaptation can take place and result in the formation of a new species.
Also stated in the Bible are the exact measurements of Noah's Ark.
Now, take the volume of every known species of non-flying, non-amphibious, non-marine (salt water, you'd still need to Ark freshwater ones) animal on the Earth today.
By Creationist logic, all those animals have always existed. And the only way they could still be around, thanks to there being no evolution, is if Noah physically saved them by bringing them aboard the Ark.
Now, double the volume of all those animals and I'm betting it's at least an order of magnitude greater than the maximum possible volume of the Ark, not accounting for required food, fresh water and waste.
Since there is no evolution, the measurements stated for Noah's Ark must be wrong. So the Bible is wrong. This is a direct contradiction of their morale foundation from which they take the high ground.
So even going by their own beliefs it doesn't make a ****ing lick of sense.
-
it was over-rated. i went in expecting to see a great film. it had its good parts, its funny parts, but overall i was disappointed :no::(
-
I feel physically ****ing sick whenever I so much as think about the pile of ****e.
I'd rather staple my nuts to a stack of crackers, than watch so much as a second of it.
-
dude, that isn't going to stop a creationist, it's almost like you've never argued with one before, though I know you have, the responce would be a simple "it was a mirical" you see if you point out how something in the Bible is imposable they turn it around to actualy make there case stronger (from there perception) it is imposable to try to convince them of anything other than there dogma.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Ugh. Tool. He put tha... err.. never mind.
You know the dates kinda line up, so I would have probably thought the same thing.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
dude, that isn't going to stop a creationist, it's almost like you've never argued with one before, though I know you have, the responce would be a simple "it was a mirical" you see if you point out how something in the Bible is imposable they turn it around to actualy make there case stronger (from there perception) it is imposable to try to convince them of anything other than there dogma.
It's never about convincing them, it's about converting innocent bystanders.
-
You mean protecting innocent bystanders from the ruinous forces of stupidity :)
-
Originally posted by an0n
The fool-proof way to destroy Creationism lies within their own logic.
Everything in the Bible is taken as being 100% true. No metaphors. No synonyms. All word-for-word accurate, God's honest truth.
And they also state that all animals were created and no biological adaptation can take place and result in the formation of a new species.
Also stated in the Bible are the exact measurements of Noah's Ark.
Now, take the volume of every known species of non-flying, non-amphibious, non-marine (salt water, you'd still need to Ark freshwater ones) animal on the Earth today.
By Creationist logic, all those animals have always existed. And the only way they could still be around, thanks to there being no evolution, is if Noah physically saved them by bringing them aboard the Ark.
Now, double the volume of all those animals and I'm betting it's at least an order of magnitude greater than the maximum possible volume of the Ark, not accounting for required food, fresh water and waste.
Since there is no evolution, the measurements stated for Noah's Ark must be wrong. So the Bible is wrong. This is a direct contradiction of their morale foundation from which they take the high ground.
So even going by their own beliefs it doesn't make a ****ing lick of sense.
You know, it has been calculated before, and it turns out that the ark is something like 3 times (don't quote me on that, i forgot the exact number, but it was something like that) bigger than it needs to be to fit all the animals.
-
yeah, you know there are a lot of diferent animals right?
I mean think about all the hundreds of mice species in south american that all lookexacly the same but they have like one more bone in there tail or something,
-
The reason the volume is thought to be sufficient is because people don't count things like insects.
And infact, if you go by the exact wording of the Bible, it should be two of every animal. Which means two blue whales, two killer whales, two whale sharks..........
-
Yeah, but those float.
Or maybe they had those bathtub blue whales, you know, add water and they grow. Like Sea Monkeys, except 200 tons.
-
Originally posted by an0n
The reason the volume is thought to be sufficient is because people don't count things like insects.
And infact, if you go by the exact wording of the Bible, it should be two of every animal. Which means two blue whales, two killer whales, two whale sharks..........
Well, not to mention that all that purified rain water would kill salt water animals methinks.
-
if it was purified, and it was rainwater, then how come the oceans are still salty? cause raining for what was it, 40 days and 40 nights? that's enough to dilute all the oceans...
BUUUUT it didn't.
remember, think before you post.
-
If it did rain enough to flood the Earth, then that rain had to come from somewhere.
The only place it coulda come from is if there was a massive evapouration prior to the flood. Which would mean massively increased salinity if the sea. Which would mean the death of every sea-bound creature.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Everything in the Bible is taken as being 100% true. No metaphors. No synonyms. All word-for-word accurate, God's honest truth.
Man, you been fed some pretty big lies wherever you heard that. I'll talk to you about it later, though.
-
i doubt thats what an0n thinks, but some people do over in the US.
pretty scary if you run into those sorry ****s.
-
Personally I think all religion is utter trash.
And when I'm in my 'dont care' mood, I'm willing to accept the principle of faith, but the methodology behind all the current religions still seems like pure bull****.
-
Originally posted by an0n
The reason the volume is thought to be sufficient is because people don't count things like insects.
And infact, if you go by the exact wording of the Bible, it should be two of every animal. Which means two blue whales, two killer whales, two whale sharks..........
I think the Ark size calculations someone did only involved a specific holy subset of animals (holy to Judaism in some way, think it was about 17 species or something)
I think flood/deluge myths are very common (i.e. not just in Christianity / Judaism, but also Hinduism, etc). Some would say that means there must have been a great flood for all these myths to exist, but flooding on a large scale is scarcely a rarity...and all these myths do is promote a belief based upon the assumption that it helped survive said disaster. Perpetuated by mouth over time, a major flood becomes one covering the globe.
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
i doubt thats what an0n thinks, but some people do over in the US.
pretty scary if you run into those sorry ****s.
Yeah, I recognise that some people do. But as you point out, it would be pretty ridiculous if you went for that alternative, and not logically sustainable. I know I certainly don't prescribe to that. But again, we'll discuss it later.
-
The Mayans believed the Earth had been destroyed several times before.
Incidentally:
The Mayan long count calendar is a list of days in the Fourth Sun, the current cycle of the world. The calendar simply ends on Dec. 21, 2012 (the winter solstice), and the Mayans did not offer a calendar addendum to specify anything much happening after that.
A variety of modern intepreters have taken this to mean that this is pretty much the end point of time, but since the Mayan language is still largely incomprehensible to scholars, the details of the whole thing are kind of obscure. One could argue that the Mayans just figured they had enough time to get around to doing the next 5,000 year cycle, but then bear in mind you're dealing with a mentality that felt it was reasonably urgent to chart out the first 5,000 years in hourly increments. Procrastination doesn't seem to be one of their big problems.
-
I agree with you, an0n, but how do you explain the creation of the Earth?
Pure coincidence? There were so many billions of factors that had to be set just right for the Earth to support our life.
Earth wasn't created by accident. But I don't believe in creationism.
Kind of an enigma, isn't it? Neither theory is correct. They can't be.
EDIT: Heeeey! My title reads Bakha now! Ooo-oo! :)
-
Originally posted by Blitzerland
I agree with you, an0n, but how do you explain the creation of the Earth?
Pure coincidence? There were so many billions of factors that had to be set just right for the Earth to support our life.
First of all, it wasn't setup so we could live. We adapted to suit existing conditions.
If we'd evolved on Mercury, you'd still be asking the same stupid question (with the planet names exchanged).
Secondly, it happened because it happened. If it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be able to ask the question. So every lifeform throughout the universe can validly ask that very same question, regardless of their biology or chemical make-up.
-
You're correct, an0n. We evolved to fit the Earth, the Earth doesn't cater to our needs.
But still, we cannot survive without oxygen. We couldn't adapt to fix that. What if our atmosphere didn't have the precise amount needed to keep us alive?
And yes, it happened because it happened, but why did it happen? That's the question...
This is getting confusing...
EDIT: Mercury never did have a proper atmosphere to support life. All life needs SOME kind of air (that won't melt em').
EDIT2: I don't believe in creatonism, but I don't believe in the Earth being randomly created. I confuse myself :sigh:
-
Originally posted by an0n
If it did rain enough to flood the Earth, then that rain had to come from somewhere.
The only place it coulda come from is if there was a massive evapouration prior to the flood. Which would mean massively increased salinity if the sea. Which would mean the death of every sea-bound creature.
since if you believe in the flood you obviously believe it's a divinely "inspired" flood, since no flood would just "happen" like that... therefore perhaps the rain didn't logically come from the sea...
i mean, if it did, then where did all that water go? enough to cover every landmass? that's a LOT of water, so don't go saying that it's all evaporated :)
:D
-
Originally posted by Blitzerland
You're correct, an0n. We evolved to fit the Earth, the Earth doesn't cater to our needs.
But still, we cannot survive without oxygen. We couldn't adapt to fix that. What if our atmosphere didn't have the precise amount needed to keep us alive?
Then we would've died and this would be a moot point. Infact there's probably a few hundred billion forms of primeval lifeforms that weren't so lucky.
And yes, it happened because it happened, but why did it happen? That's the question...
The laws of probability.
-
Um...that doesn't make sense to me. But it makes more sense than creationism. So i'll go with luck and probability.
-
the atmosphere of eaarly earth was beleived to be quite nasty, there was no oxygen, it wasn't untill plant like things came about and started churning the stuff out did was any life even able to tolorate O2, you see oxygen is in the same family as a bunch of other rather nasty gasses, it's caustic and corosive, it's just that we have spent the last 4 billion years liveing in this stuff that we have evolved to survive in and take advantage of the energy in it
-
Originally posted by Blitzerland
I agree with you, an0n, but how do you explain the creation of the Earth?
Pure coincidence? There were so many billions of factors that had to be set just right for the Earth to support our life.
Earth wasn't created by accident. But I don't believe in creationism.
Kind of an enigma, isn't it? Neither theory is correct. They can't be.
EDIT: Heeeey! My title reads Bakha now! Ooo-oo! :)
Not if you presuppose the possibility of an infinite number of parallel (or even consecutive, if you go for the big-collapse/reboot theory, albeit that's restarting time so it's sort of parallel, anyways) universes.... i.e. if something is happening trillions of times, then even the longest odds will come true in one 'iteration'.
(ref. to other 2 posts)
Also, the oxygen level of Earth is something which we have adapted to, again. Life evolved to use oxygen as it became dominant in the atmosphere, and those that couldn't tolerate these levels, died off - simple as that.
finally, we don't know that life requires air. Earth life requires air, for all we know there could be organisms that thrive in complete vacuum living off solar energy, for example. That's the beauty of the universe IMO... anything is possible, regardless of how alien it appears to us :)
-
The earliest lifeforms didn't need oxygen. The current thinking is that life probably started off in the black smokers - volcanoes deep in the ocean. Life here was most likely sulphur based and didn't need oxygen at all.
Eventually something evolved that could photosynthesise (or a process similar to it for which oxygen is a waste product) and so the oxygen levels in the atmosphere began to rise. Eventually this hit the level were something else figured out how to use this oxygen. Since then the amount of oxygen has stayed balanced because the oxygen given out by planets is balanced to that taken in by animals.
Since humans evolved in this finely balanced system it's easy to think that it is necessary for life to evolve. It isn't. It just happened to be the conditions that existed on Earth when we did happen to evolve.
-
Oxygen's a metabolic poison anyways, isn't it?
Um, and is this a contender for the most OT topic ever?
-
I have this powerful suspicion that if we can ascertain the link between Napoleon Dynamite and the origin of life, we will have discovered the ultimate truth that presides over the harmonic symphony of the universe.
-
Have a potential explanation for the prevalence of the Flood mythos in the Mediterranean region courtesy of National Geographic:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I have this powerful suspicion that if we can ascertain the link between Napoleon Dynamite and the origin of life, we will have discovered the ultimate truth that presides over the harmonic symphony of the universe.
42!?
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I have this powerful suspicion that if we can ascertain the link between Napoleon Dynamite and the origin of life, we will have discovered the ultimate truth that presides over the harmonic symphony of the universe.
Harmonic symphony does not best describe this movie...if it can even be called that.
-
I know, I saw it. It made me want to laugh and cut myself at the same time.
But maybe there is some link that we've all overlooked in the daze of our tumultuous daily lives....