Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on May 18, 2010, 04:21:20 am
-
According to a new series (http://io9.com/5540754/spielbergs-terra-nova-land-of-the-lost-meets-avatar), set to debut in 2011, from Steven Spielberg.
From executive producers Steven Spielberg, Peter Chernin, Brannon Braga (24, "Star Trek: Enterprise") and David Fury ("Lost," "Buffy the Vampire Slayer") comes an epic family adventure 85 million years in the making. TERRA NOVA follows an ordinary family embarking on an incredible journey back in time to prehistoric Earth as a small part of a massive experiment to save the human race.
In the year 2149 the world is dying. The planet is overdeveloped, overcrowded and overpolluted. With the majority of plant and animal life extinct, devotion to science has brought mankind to the brink of destruction, but has also provided its only hope for salvation. Knowing there is no way to reverse the damage to the planet, a coalition of scientists has managed to open up a fracture in the space-time continuum, creating a portal to prehistoric Earth. This doorway leads to an amazing world, one that allows for a last-ditch effort to save the human race ... possibly changing the future by correcting the mistakes of the past.
Once again, anything modern or scientific is "evil". Does anyone else seem to notice this trend increasing in recent years in hollywood?
-
Well, they wouldn't know a paradox if it killed their grandparents, to be honest ;) I remember Brannon Bragas' ideas about Time Travel from ST:Voyager episodes, and it was painful to watch.
And let's not even mention the fact the 'Science' is not 'Industry'. It might be 'an' Industry, which I'll reserve judgement on, but it's certainly not Science that is polluting the atmosphere or destroying natural habitats ;)
-
LOL sounds like the Texas school books
-
I'm wondering how they are planning to deal with the over-crowding, set off a nuclear bomb in pre-industrial Europe?
Edit: Ooooh! I know, kill Louis Pasteur! That'll save the world!
-
And let's not even mention the fact the 'Science' is not 'Industry'. It might be 'an' Industry, which I'll reserve judgement on, but it's certainly not Science that is polluting the atmosphere or destroying natural habitats
Doesn't matter, it's EVIL. :p First there was the series finale of BSG, then Avatar, then 2012, now this. Looks like a trend to me.
-
go back to 1941 and give the japanese and nazis nukes.
and technically the theme of science and technology run amok goes back a very long way. think frankenstein.
-
:wtf:
We had a discussion about Avatar back when it was released. It was not Anti-Science, not in the least.
BSGs finale was not Anti-Science, it was more like "Our science has advanced too fast for our morality to follow" (Which is completely idiotic, but not Anti-Science, really).
2012.....can't say anything about that, haven't seen it and don't plan to.
As for the series itself, well Brannon Braga is involved, which means I won't watch it. Not to mention that the basic premise sounds utterly silly.
The anti-science angle....well, it IS on Fox. We all know the tenuous relationship they have with what we call reality.
-
2012 doesnt have anything to do with science. 2012 was more like titanic 2, cept replace a luxury liner with planet earth.
-
2012 doesnt have anything to do with science. 2012 was more like titanic 2, cept replace a luxury liner with planet earth.
Why do I suddenly have the image of a giant man in a cowboy getup holding these giant reins around the planet whilst shouting "Ease burg a herd!" in my mind?
-
The VasudansSome people view magic as sufficiently advanced technology.
-
The VasudansSome people view magic as sufficiently advanced technology.
good correction.
unless I'm a vasudan
-
:wtf:
We had a discussion about Avatar back when it was released. It was not Anti-Science, not in the least.
BSGs finale was not Anti-Science, it was more like "Our science has advanced too fast for our morality to follow" (Which is completely idiotic, but not Anti-Science, really).
2012.....can't say anything about that, haven't seen it and don't plan to.
As for the series itself, well Brannon Braga is involved, which means I won't watch it. Not to mention that the basic premise sounds utterly silly.
The anti-science angle....well, it IS on Fox. We all know the tenuous relationship they have with what we call reality.
Yeah, agree with you completely.
Avatar was more anti-industrialisation/pro-conservation in it's message. Was completely about the need to preserve the planet's natural resources and beauty (Instead of raping and pillaging to get the Unobtainium they desired.)
BSG's ending was slightly silly, but I forgive it because the lead up was awesome.
-
Maybe it would be good to wait until the show is released before judging it's message? :rolleyes:
Oh, right, it's the Internet.
Regarding time travel: this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLvx7lVwpzY) is my favorite treatment of time travel paradoxes.
-
Avatar was a recent movie that was really pro-science.
-
Look, the Information Age has taken its toll on everyone's attention span, myself included, but, ah... you still really gotta tough it out until you hit one of these:
.
As in,
devotion to science has brought mankind to the brink of destruction, but has also provided its only hope for salvation.
-
Why the hell would an ordinary family be the ones sent back in time to save the human race? Wouldn't it be smarter to send some scientists and some guys with guns just in case in hungry large predators?
-
It's a show by Brannon Braga where he hasn't been able to nick the ideas of people vastly more talented than him (Like Gene Roddenberry and JMS) when coming up with the basic idea. Any original ideas that the writers do manage to come up with will be squashed under his insistence for ridiculous time travel bollocks from the brain that brought us time travelling Nazis in Enterprise.
While I usually take a "Wait and see" approach with most shows I'm pretty confident that this is going to suck already. So I'm going to assume it's utter ****e until someone tells me differently.
-
Why the hell would an ordinary family be the ones sent back in time to save the human race? Wouldn't it be smarter to send some scientists and some guys with guns just in case in hungry large predators?
They'sa gonna give 'em a dang good hiding wit' their banjos! YeeeHaw!!!
@Ford
Thing is, the simple phrase 'the abuse of' instead of 'devotion to' would have saved the entire sentence from sinking into nonsensicality. I.e. 'The abuse of science has bought mankind to the brink of destruction, but science is our only hope for salvation'. Which is not only true, but doesn't require time-travel either ;)
-
So this guy has put time traveling Nazis in Star Trek? Yeah, this is going to suck hard with no chance of redemption.
-
Isn't this also the man who wrote the Voyager episode 'Threshold', possibly the single biggest insult to Star Trek ever conceived?
-
Yep. Meet Brannon Braga, single worst writer to ever work on Star Trek. He has written one good episode (ST:TNG, the one where the Enterprise gets exploded by colliding with an old ship that is flying through a temporal anomaly. 4(?) times in a row), but that's about it.
-
so he essentially recycled the plot to groundhog day?
IF I EVER SEE ANOTHER GROUNDHOG DAY EPISODE OF ANY SCIFI SERIES I WILL ****ING VOMIT! THAT PLOT LINE HAS BEEN USED TO DEATH!
-
She Blinded Me With Science!
-
Isn't this also the man who wrote the Voyager episode 'Threshold', possibly the single biggest insult to Star Trek ever conceived?
Honestly, Voyager itself was the single biggest insult to Star Trek, let alone sci-fi.
-
so he essentially recycled the plot to groundhog day?
IF I EVER SEE ANOTHER GROUNDHOG DAY EPISODE OF ANY SCIFI SERIES I WILL ****ING VOMIT! THAT PLOT LINE HAS BEEN USED TO DEATH!
I'm sorry, I don't care how recycled the premise is-- I ****ing love that episode of TNG.
-
Groundhog Day itself is already a rip of of 12:01 anyway. No idea if that was the original version of the story.
So yet again the only decent thing Braga ever did was a rip off of someone else's work. And he didn't even do that good a job of it. The Stargate SG-1 version was much better.
-
Isn't this also the man who wrote the Voyager episode 'Threshold', possibly the single biggest insult to Star Trek ever conceived?
Honestly, Voyager itself was the single biggest insult to Star Trek, let alone sci-fi.
To be honest, Voyager had a lot of potential, but they kept chickening out from the hard questions, they could have beaten BSG to the punch if they'd not hit the 'reset button' every week, or used Time Travel/Spacial Anomolies etc to fix everything by the end of each episode. There were one or two episodes where it really shone, for example, when Voyager encountered a ship that had gone that way, ignoring the Prime Directive and sinking into survival mode, the original writers wanted the 'Year of Hell' to be canon, but they lost their bottle and did it as a 'seperate universe' thing in the end, I always felt it was that unwillingness to tackle the very questions Voyager had been created to ask that killed the series.
-
They should have the whole mission successful only to wind up having the science illiterate earth they create get side swiped by a asteroid that the technologically corrupt one could have easily dealt with :P
-
Groundhog Day itself is already a rip of of 12:01 anyway. No idea if that was the original version of the story.
So yet again the only decent thing Braga ever did was a rip off of someone else's work. And he didn't even do that good a job of it. The Stargate SG-1 version was much better.
I suppose, in a long-winded way, it's all an interpretation of the ancient Greek myth of Sysiphus, doomed to eternally roll a rock uphill until he can reach the top.
-
Groundhog Day itself is already a rip of of 12:01 anyway. No idea if that was the original version of the story.
So yet again the only decent thing Braga ever did was a rip off of someone else's work. And he didn't even do that good a job of it. The Stargate SG-1 version was much better.
they knew it was an overused plot line, at least a dozen scifi shows and movies had used it before. what made the sg-1 rip is that they actually had fun with it.
so he essentially recycled the plot to groundhog day?
IF I EVER SEE ANOTHER GROUNDHOG DAY EPISODE OF ANY SCIFI SERIES I WILL ****ING VOMIT! THAT PLOT LINE HAS BEEN USED TO DEATH!
I'm sorry, I don't care how recycled the premise is-- I ****ing love that episode of TNG.
well that episode most likely came out before i grew sick of that particular plot line. :D
-
I dunno about that series, but the direction the people are currently going in the information/technology age is slowly killing our morals and ethics. More foul language/scenes are allowed on television, kids are beginning to know about sex/drugs at younger and younger ages, the middle and low class workers have to follow corporate orders to the letter or lose their job regardless of what their conscience thinks, more and more monotonous work, it's getting harder for a single person to live on his/her own, marriage isn't that important as it used to be, sex is not as sacred, time is moving too fast and keeps on moving faster in which at one point the humans will be pressed hard to keep up, more and more "legal" drugs needed to keep people going, etc. etc. etc.
Of course, science is a factor to all the above :(
-
Actually, the ironic part is. people are losing their virginity at the highest ages in recorded history, less than 150 years ago, the average childbearing age of a woman was her early teens, and the minimum marriage age was 12. Drugs were also common among the children of those who could afford it, with Opium, and even Heroin being given to children under 10 to help them sleep in Victorian times. Worker Rights are far greater than even 50 years ago with levels of protection for discrimination, unlawful dismissal and even whistle-blowing, and, I believe that if you include non-religious unions, more marriages are taking place than ever before.
I'll admit it's not perfect, possibly never will be, but don't buy too heavily into the 'degenerating society' comments of many News agencies, to be honest, they really don't know what they are talking about ;)
-
so he essentially recycled the plot to groundhog day?
IF I EVER SEE ANOTHER GROUNDHOG DAY EPISODE OF ANY SCIFI SERIES I WILL ****ING VOMIT! THAT PLOT LINE HAS BEEN USED TO DEATH!
sounds like you might be going a bit
(http://i49.tinypic.com/9s6o9w.jpg)
WACKO
-
I dunno about that series, but the direction the people are currently going in the information/technology age is slowly killing our morals and ethics. More foul language/scenes are allowed on television, kids are beginning to know about sex/drugs at younger and younger ages, the middle and low class workers have to follow corporate orders to the letter or lose their job regardless of what their conscience thinks, more and more monotonous work, it's getting harder for a single person to live on his/her own, marriage isn't that important as it used to be, sex is not as sacred, time is moving too fast and keeps on moving faster in which at one point the humans will be pressed hard to keep up, more and more "legal" drugs needed to keep people going, etc. etc. etc.
Of course, science is a factor to all the above :(
Evidence for any of this, please?
-
Seems more like "us is killing science" to me actually.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/gop-kills-science-jobs-bill-by-forcing-dems-to-vote-for-porn.php
-
*random misplaced nostalgia*
Ah yes. The good old days (http://weburbanist.com/2010/05/18/old-school-vintage-ads-were-glad-are-gone/).
-
I dunno about that series, but the direction the people are currently going in the information/technology age is slowly killing our morals and ethics.
Only in appearance. As you go back through history, every1 generation thought that science and/or technology is killing our morals and ethics.
More foul language/scenes are allowed on television, kids are beginning to know about sex/drugs at younger and younger ages, the middle and low class workers have to follow corporate orders to the letter or lose their job regardless of what their conscience thinks, more and more monotonous work,
I like Flipside's response to this (which I couldn't have said better myself):
Actually, the ironic part is. people are losing their virginity at the highest ages in recorded history, less than 150 years ago, the average childbearing age of a woman was her early teens, and the minimum marriage age was 12. Drugs were also common among the children of those who could afford it, with Opium, and even Heroin being given to children under 10 to help them sleep in Victorian times. Worker Rights are far greater than even 50 years ago with levels of protection for discrimination, unlawful dismissal and even whistle-blowing, and, I believe that if you include non-religious unions, more marriages are taking place than ever before.
it's getting harder for a single person to live on his/her own,
Hmm, up until the turn of the 20th century you would have entire families living in one house (a so called extended family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_family). Grandparents2, the "home owner" and all of the children3 lived in the same house. And even at that it wasn't until the 1950s that the nuclear family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family) thing became popular.
marriage isn't that important as it used to be, sex is not as sacred,
- Hmm, didn't the pharaohs of Egypt have harems?
- sex? sacred? Its just something you do to have fun and make heirs.
- Didn't most if not all of the Kings and Queens of Europe have "mistresses"4.
- A monarch pretty much has to marry, but it was never for love, but as a system of negotiation and treaties. Basically the wife (usually) was the diplomat. The result was a King/Queen had his/her wife/husband and also had "mistresses"4.
- Didn't Henry VIII declare himself the head of the Church of England so that he could divorce his wife(s) because she(they) did not produce male heirs?
- Have some children and then leave her if you don't get heirs or behead her if your feeling really vengful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wives_of_Henry_VIII). Yep that sounds scarced.
time is moving too fast and keeps on moving faster in which at one point the humans will be pressed hard to keep up,
Again something that every1 generation has said. This also starting to sound like the Luddites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite).
more and more "legal" drugs needed to keep people going, etc. etc. etc.
We are also living longer on average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_variation_over_time). Keep in mind, those numbers are life expectancy from birth, that is, if the child lives past 15 (or so) those life expectancy number actually jump 20-30 years longer.
Of course, science is a factor to all the above :(
Yes, science and technology is a factor, that is why we humans (most of us as least) love it so. For those that are not familiar with history (especially the study of history) there are a couple of principles that need to be kept in mind. They are: survivor bias (or The Survivor Fallacy) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias) and history is "written" by the winners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_is_written_by_the_victors).
Now, remember, just so that I am clear, I am not saying that anyone who complains about technology and science "destroying" the "fabric" of society, is wrong or ignorant, I am just saying that, we as humans, have a very strong bias to "remember the good old days" when everything was wonderful and world was much nicer5 then.
1) For various levels of every.
2) It was their "retirement plan". Have your children take care of you. Though it help the grandparents children in that unless the grandparent was going senile they were also able to watch the children.
3) Except for the girls who were sent off to another house as soon as possible, normally well before 18. Though the house would include the wives of the children as well, thought that depended greatly on current economic conditions (ie. some of the sons (and their wives, usually) go to the new world or to the frontier for better opportunities or just for the adventure).
4) For lack of a gender neutral word.
5) Except for the pollution, which is certainly is a concern that we in the west are learning to deal with and address (mostly through our own experience)
-
good post, will copy and steal
also: ****ing owned
-
In my experience, "destroying the fabric of society" is more like "I don't understand $THING, I have no idea how $THING works, and thus $THING has to be bad for everyone". AKA it's what happens when you stop accepting the fact that society at large is constantly evolving to react to new trends and start to think that your society at some given point in history was better than the society you are living in right now, not only for you, but for EVERYONE. Which is just .... mind-boggingly presumptious.
-
In my experience, "destroying the fabric of society" is more like "I don't understand $THING, I have no idea how $THING works, and thus $THING has to be bad for everyone". AKA it's what happens when you stop accepting the fact that society at large is constantly evolving to react to new trends and start to think that your society at some given point in history was better than the society you are living in right now, not only for you, but for EVERYONE. Which is just .... mind-boggingly presumptious.
]
I just hear "social conservative, social conservative. i hate freedom and i'm here to take yours away"
-
WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOOOMED AAAGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHGHG
:)
-
In my experience, "destroying the fabric of society" is more like "I don't understand $THING, I have no idea how $THING works, and thus $THING has to be bad for everyone". AKA it's what happens when you stop accepting the fact that society at large is constantly evolving to react to new trends and start to think that your society at some given point in history was better than the society you are living in right now, not only for you, but for EVERYONE. Which is just .... mind-boggingly presumptious.
Ya, pretty much, its that combination of "golden age", history written by the winners, and the survivor bias. That is, the ones that we "see" now are the ones that actually did well in that period or were at least remember/recorded. We don't see the people that were oppressed or otherwise trampled on either because they didn't or couldn't record their experience (or it was just lost as time can be a real *****).
The result of this, when you get right down to it, is the vast majority that we know about the history of the human civilizations, including ones that exist today comes from one or two people that were in that civilization or visited the civilization. Which means that we have no idea what the normal person did or what life was like for them, as they either could not write/record, didn't write/record, or what they wrote/recorded was lost to time. In fact we still have this problem with things from today. I have even seen it here on HLP ( and I have only been on this board continuously for less than a year) where things have disappeared and knowledge is lost (the code base is good public example of that, "what were they thinking!").
I just hear "social conservative, social conservative. i love my freedom that modern society has given me but i'm here to take yours away"
Fixed that for you.
-
I do think it's as much of a fallacy to say that "we're in decline because X happens more/less" as to say "we aren't in any sort of decline because Y happened before" simply because society isn't homogeneous and even if morality could be described as a function over time, it certainly isn't monotonic. Besides, most of the time the arguments are made using whatever handpicked examples are at hand, instead of any empirical measure... and even if you want an empirical measure, I doubt they are always as available as you'd like (am I right Battuta?) or even in the same frame of reference.
EDIT: Iss just said a lot of what I meant: we have a skewed view of the past anyway, and there's not much we can do about that.
As far as technology goes, it is simply an enabler. It certainly can be used for good or evil, to make society better or worse. But it's no more responsible for any of that than a hammer is for building a house.
(But if you are on the verge of introducing technology Z, know that it will probably be used mostly for bad purposes, and choose to introduce it anyway and enable people to destroy themselves, are you morally responsible? Good philosophical question, but tangential).
That said, I do worry that modern western society is heading in troubling directions... mostly that as we get more connected and involved in the virtual world, we become less connected and involved in the real world. We're abstracting ourselves away from reality, and I worry that the consequences of this will be more bad than good.
-
I just hear "social conservative, social conservative. i hate freedom and i'm here to take yours away"
MM HMM...I'd like some of whatever he's drinking.
Seriously though, 100 years ago, the "Conservatives" of today would have been labeled Liberals. Also, for the record, Tura I don't give a flying damn if you smoke, drink, **** and "high" your way into an early grave. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let you advocate rampant such with government monies or authority.
-
Ben Stein says: Science leads you to killing people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M
-
@Liberator
That's part of the problem though. If I was running my 9th grade health class, I'd be telling kids that weed is a little less dangerous than alcohol, but that both can cause problems in your life, and that sex is a natural thing, but that they should use protection to make sure they don't get STDs (or babies).
I imagine your take on that class would be a little more in line with what that class actually taught, and a lot less useful. (drugs are bad, dont have sex). You know, the stuff that made me all unprepared for actual reality once i got out of my house.
I wouldn't consider my take on the class to be "advocating ****ing and getting high" i would consider it "giving them an accurate picture of reality"
-
Ben Stein says: Science leads you to killing people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M
ah, thunderfoot, awesome guy
-
(But if you are on the verge of introducing technology Z, know that it will probably be used mostly for bad purposes, and choose to introduce it anyway and enable people to destroy themselves, are you morally responsible? Good philosophical question, but tangential).
Oppenheimer would probably have a lot to say on that particular topic. ;)
-
What counts as destroying themselves? Back in the 30's the radio was going to corrupt kids and destroy society.
Liberator: If you keeps kids uninformed, then all their decisions and actions will be uniformed. And probably wrong.
-
I just hear "social conservative, social conservative. i hate freedom and i'm here to take yours away"
MM HMM...I'd like some of whatever he's drinking.
Seriously though, 100 years ago, the "Conservatives" of today would have been labeled Liberals. Also, for the record, Tura I don't give a flying damn if you smoke, drink, **** and "high" your way into an early grave. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let you advocate rampant such with government monies or authority.
What's the line between 'advocating' and 'teaching to handle responsibly?'
I mean, at a point, if it's going to happen anyway, and you don't say anything about it, aren't you advocating doing it recklessly and unsafely?
This coming from a lifelong abstinent and monogamist.
-
This coming from a lifelong abstinent and monogamist.
Ditto.
Maybe its because I was taught all about the options and consequences of things. After learning all the stuff taught in sex ed and drug talks, my curiosity was driven from me.
-
I mean, at a point, if it's going to happen anyway, and you don't say anything about it, aren't you advocating doing it recklessly and unsafely?
Teachers at my schools weren't allowed to tell us about contraceptives. I and just about everyone I knew believed that you had to be 18 to buy condoms. I was already sexually active (if you don't plan on ever getting married, why wait?) before I learned the truth.
Your answer is yes.
-
Yep, not teaching properly results in the propagation of idiotic myths like that you can't get pregnant if you have sex standing up. :D
-
All I remember from my health class was the 20 year old slide of a guy that got mouth cancer from chewing tobacco and had to have his cheek amputated.
I'm all for teaching all the options, provided they're taught without bias. And yes, I'm counting derision from the instructor as bias. The problem is that the push from the top seems to be to toss anything not from the progressive playbook.
-
All I remember from my health class was the 20 year old slide of a guy that got mouth cancer from chewing tobacco and had to have his cheek amputated.
I'm all for teaching all the options, provided they're taught without bias. And yes, I'm counting derision from the instructor as bias. The problem is that the push from the top seems to be to toss anything not from the progressive playbook.
Source please.
-
This coming from a lifelong abstinent and monogamist.
Ditto.
Maybe its because I was taught all about the options and consequences of things. After learning all the stuff taught in sex ed and drug talks, my curiosity was driven from me.
Oh hey, that's me too.
-
WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOOOMED AAAGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHGHG
:)
WE'RE DOOOOMMMMMED! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USHHQRodF88)
-
The problem is that the push from the top seems to be to toss anything not from the progressive playbook.
Such as?
What exactly has been tossed for not being in the progressive playbook?
-
The problem is that the push from the top seems to be to toss anything not from the progressive playbook.
Such as?
What exactly has been tossed for not being in the progressive playbook?
I know! I know!
The stuff about contraceptives! Oh, wait...
-
Interesting how someone who is against abortions also is against teaching teenagers to use protections when they do it to make it so there's no need to have an abortion.
-
(But if you are on the verge of introducing technology Z, know that it will probably be used mostly for bad purposes, and choose to introduce it anyway and enable people to destroy themselves, are you morally responsible? Good philosophical question, but tangential).
Oppenheimer would probably have a lot to say on that particular topic. ;)
if science is killing us then why is the world still not a radioactive wasteland? get with the program people and start nuking cities! i cant wait to start riding around in the desert on a motorcycle killing people for gasoline.
Yep, not teaching properly results in the propagation of idiotic myths like that you can't get pregnant if you have sex standing up. :D
thats more the kind of thing you say to get into some girls pants. i usually avoided worrying about getting chicks pregnant simply by screwing only married women, that way even if she does get pregnant youre off the hook.
-
Interesting how someone who is against abortions also is against teaching teenagers to use protections when they do it to make it so there's no need to have an abortion.
Who does this apply to? Normally I'd assume Lib, but he's stated the opposite on this one.
I'm all for teaching all the options, provided they're taught without bias.
-
In a perfect world, everyone would have the ethics and morality to wait until they are married. Like me! :D :p
-
In a perfect world, everyone would have the ethics and morality to wait until they are married. Like me! :D :p
Yeah, but then nobody would get laid. Sex is fun, and can be done safely with no consequences if you know what you're doing.
The problem is that the push from the top seems to be to toss anything not from the progressive playbook.
Such as?
What exactly has been tossed for not being in the progressive playbook?
All those silly things like gender equality, race equality, contraception. Dangerous ideas like "drugs can be fine in moderation" and "sometimes abortion is ok." Anti-American ideas like workers unionizing to protect themselves from abusive employers, not driving everywhere you go in the biggest car possible, eating your vegetables.
-
In a perfect world, everyone would have the ethics and morality to wait until they are married. Like me! :D :p
That would be unethical and immoral.
Especially when large chunks of people aren't allowed to get married.
Your wedding night is also going to be really, really bad.
-
I still remember the first time, it's never what could be described as 'momentous' experience, more like 'terrifying'...
-
All those silly things like gender equality, race equality, contraception. Dangerous ideas like "drugs can be fine in moderation" and "sometimes abortion is ok."
I would say that abortion is never ok. It is acceptable in some circumstances, there are cases where it is a neccesity. But 'ok'?
-
People certainly shouldn't be classed as 'Baby-Killers' or 'Murderers' or 'Evil' for doing so. But, in fairness, a lot of work has to be done to deter the idea that it is a contraceptive measure.
What should really be the focus is not whether abortion is 'Right' or 'Wrong', but educating people so that the decision shouldn't even be a concern in far more cases.
That's where education should be playing a positive role, rather than a negative one.
And, in fairness, he did qualify it with the word 'sometimes'.
-
O.k. is not the same thing as necessary.
-
My position is that any abortion is 'ok', you certainly shouldn't be persecuted for having one, we should, rather than attacking those who choose to have abortions, instead be focussing on reducing the possibility of one being needed in the first place.
Edit: After all, look at the over-arching hypocrisy involved even if this movies' premise, remember it's not Science that says Contraception is bad, it's not science that says Abortions are evil, and yet, apparently, the over-crowding on the planet is science's fault...
-
I would say that abortion is never ok. It is acceptable in some circumstances, there are cases where it is a neccesity. But 'ok'?
It is one thing for you to have an opinion on the matter (although, if you are a single male, I kinda would have to ask what it is that makes you qualified to even have an opinion on the subject). You are certainly free to voice your opinion, but ultimately, it is your opinion, not some immutable fact.
It is quite another thing to construct policies to keep women from making an informed decision on the subject themselves.
Or to camp outside of clinics that perform abortions, screaming invective at Doctors and Patients.
Or to threaten to kill people who perform abortions, or had abortions performed.
-
or actually kill people who perform abortions, or had abortions performed.
cause that's happened.
-
Also, Flip, I was thinking more along the lines of telling everyone that they have a "right" to this luxury or that piece of fancy.
When you start turning luxuries into "rights" you are gaming the board of economy right into a place where it will stumble or fall. Because if a big house or a fancy car or a Rolex are considered "rights" then people will do whatever it takes to obtain them, including taking on crippling debt that they have no hope of ever paying.
And now you have a bunch of progressives(though they are hardly labeled as such) riding to the rescue and basically saying that "It doesn't matter that you flushed your life down the toilet with this debt, we'll cover you with tax money." It's not Government's place to live our lives for us and save us from making mistakes. This (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/52050/what_is_the_purpose_of_the_government.html?cat=37) short article says it more eloquently than I could what the responsibilities of the government are on a basic level. Though there are reasonable limitations that should be placed on government.
On the topic of abortion, my main gripe and complaint with it is that it is considered a viable method of contraception. When in fact it's a major medical procedure with all the inherent risks of any other surgery, despite this, women's rights 'advocates' continue to promote it as a contraceptive. Teenaged girls having an abortion without parental notification is akin to having open heart surgery without parental notification, which is illegal because they are minors. I have said in the past that I would be ok with a non-invasive "abortion pill", if such a thing is possible that doesn't harm the health of the woman, that is taken after unprotected intercourse as an emergency contraception, but again it would need to be administered by a physician to protect against complications.
Lastly, committing a murder to stop a murder is never the right thing. Even to stop a dozen or a hundred or a thousand. Human life is sacred and while I might joke about killing this despot or that terrorist, it usually doesn't solve anything.
-
On the topic of abortion, my main gripe and complaint with it is that it is considered a viable method of contraception.
Cite please. Who says this?
When in fact it's a major medical procedure with all the inherent risks of any other surgery, despite this, women's rights 'advocates' continue to promote it as a contraceptive. Teenaged girls having an abortion without parental notification is akin to having open heart surgery without parental notification, which is illegal because they are minors
Cite please. Why is this true when having an early-term abortion just requires taking a pill?
I have said in the past that I would be ok with a non-invasive "abortion pill", if such a thing is possible that doesn't harm the health of the woman, that is taken after unprotected intercourse as an emergency contraception, but again it would need to be administered by a physician to protect against complications.
Are you ****ing serious?
This is why we need better sex education.
This already exists. Mifepristone or Mifeprex will do this. Plan B will do this. This has been around for decades.
I mean, seriously, are you kidding? How did you not know this and yet even have an opinion on abortion? It's like me saying 'Well, I think interstate travel would be something I could get behind if we had some kind of...engine-powered vehicles, instead of horse-drawn carriages.'
Lastly, committing a murder to stop a murder is never the right thing. Even to stop a dozen or a hundred or a thousand. Human life is sacred and while I might joke about killing this despot or that terrorist, it usually doesn't solve anything.
If anyone could agree on whether or not abortion was murder or not this might be helpful. Why aren't we rushing to stop the millions of accidental deaths caused by human pregnancies' 80% failure rate? I mean, wouldn't it be a tragedy and a holocaust if bricks kept falling on 80% of babies and killing them? Why aren't we up in arms about it?
I'm personally of the opinion that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
-
I'm personally of the opinion that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
I don't think there's a single person on this board right now that disagrees with any of that (except maybe on the rare part). The differences and argument come from how that should be accomplished, whether the difference comes from differing levels of education or whathaveyou.
-
Well, no offence to the Americans on here, but the USA is a country that is obsessed with 'Rights', for better or for worse. It means that just as Gays have to accept the Westborough Baptist Church as being allowed to have the position they do, so do anti-abortionists have to accept that their view is not shared by everyone.
All of these various groups would love their opinions enshrined in law, which is why Governments all over the western world will work really hard to not have a solid policy on these matters regardless of outside pressure, but there are sections of the US Government that are starting to consider votes more important than this position.
People see Rights protecting Gays or Abortion as being pro-Liberal, but, in truth, they are simply there to give people the choice, it's a lot fairer to open a door and invite people to not walk through it than to close the door to everyone, and it's always dangerous when people who choose not to walk through the door decide the door should be closed.
-
did you just equate all of the people on this board who are opposed to abortion with the WBC? cause I've found that comparison is often met with hostility.
-
did you just equate all of the people on this board who are opposed to abortion with the WBC? cause I've found that comparison is often met with hostility.
I actually think he equated the people who were pro-abortion with the WBC. In an illustrative rather than provocative manner.
-
humans should be destroyed by any means possible. abortion is totally acceptable meathod, although not as fun as nukes or gatling guns.
-
did you just equate all of the people on this board who are opposed to abortion with the WBC? cause I've found that comparison is often met with hostility.
That's just stupid, and a wonderful example of looking for a reason to be offended.
Seriously, I've seen some grasps in my time, but that's stretching it to new levels....
-
not that I'm opposed to abortion mind you.
-
It's still a silly comment to make, it's pretty obvious from the statement that I'm not comparing the two opinions, I'm comparing the rights of those opinions to exist.
-
That said, I do worry that modern western society is heading in troubling directions... mostly that as we get more connected and involved in the virtual world, we become less connected and involved in the real world. We're abstracting ourselves away from reality, and I worry that the consequences of this will be more bad than good.
You are not alone on that, man, you are not alone :(
I guess I sorta do miss the old days where inventing something didn't have to be patented and people can learn off of other people without getting into trouble. Now you gotta worry about the legal issues about everything in life. Even though those same legal issues are meant to protect people, they are also abused.
-
LOL sounds like the Texas school books
But then they would be going back only 8,000 years
-
I don't know many people that don't accept that the Earth is significantly older than the Bible seems to indicate. Even the matriarchs/patriarchs and my pastor don't. Though they don't speak about it often.
-
The Earth is 4.7 billion years old, and according to what science says, what happened during that period seems to contradict what the Bible says.
-
I don't know many people that don't accept that the Earth is significantly older than the Bible seems to indicate.
Try visiting Answers In Genesis's Creation Museum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum) then. It's full of the ignorant bastards. :p
-
I guess I sorta do miss the old days where inventing something didn't have to be patented and people can learn off of other people without getting into trouble. Now you gotta worry about the legal issues about everything in life. Even though those same legal issues are meant to protect people, they are also abused.
When were these days again?
As I recall invention theft has always been a big problem.
-
That said, I do worry that modern western society is heading in troubling directions... mostly that as we get more connected and involved in the virtual world, we become less connected and involved in the real world. We're abstracting ourselves away from reality, and I worry that the consequences of this will be more bad than good.
You are not alone on that, man, you are not alone :(
I guess I sorta do miss the old days where inventing something didn't have to be patented and people can learn off of other people without getting into trouble. Now you gotta worry about the legal issues about everything in life. Even though those same legal issues are meant to protect people, they are also abused.
Patents exist because if they didn't if you invented something cool you wouldn't be able to make any money off of it.
-
Remind me what copyright is for again.
-
Same freaking thing as patents, except it applies to stuff like books and movies.
-
I'd love to know how you could make a system using copyright for ideas and inventions without having it be exactly the same as a patent anyway.
-
I've always thought of copyrights as "Mind patents" anyway.
-
Same freaking thing as patents, except it applies to stuff like books and movies.
and lasts for 9 zillion years
-
the problem i have with intelectual property is that most of the property isnt very intellectual at all. as a result you cant add 2 and 2 without paying someone.
i think what we should do is to throw together a bunch of money, and patent something like the wheel, or fire, just to show everyone how stupid patents are, while getting filthy rich in the process.
-
i think what we should do is to throw together a bunch of money, and patent something like the wheel, or fire, just to show everyone how stupid patents are, while getting filthy rich in the process.
Been tried before. Many times, in fact. They keep denying the patent.
-
the problem i have with intelectual property is that most of the property isnt very intellectual at all. as a result you cant add 2 and 2 without paying someone.
i think what we should do is to throw together a bunch of money, and patent something like the wheel, or fire, just to show everyone how stupid patents are, while getting filthy rich in the process.
2+2 is public domain. :p
-
I read mach's posts and I think two things. First, I really want to post some photos of lynchings. Ah, the good old days. Second, how does it feel to be outstripped by the pace of cultural change? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcbM3dsvjnE)
-
I guess I sorta do miss the old days where inventing something didn't have to be patented and people can learn off of other people without getting into trouble. Now you gotta worry about the legal issues about everything in life. Even though those same legal issues are meant to protect people, they are also abused.
Translation: you miss the days before you knew about that stuff.
-
I guess I sorta do miss the old days where inventing something didn't have to be patented and people can learn off of other people without getting into trouble. Now you gotta worry about the legal issues about everything in life. Even though those same legal issues are meant to protect people, they are also abused.
Translation: you miss the days before you knew about that stuff.
Quoted for truth.
-
Translation: you miss the days before you knew about that stuff.
Frigging mod parent up!
-
The answer: NO.
Why?
Are you dying? LOL No. Unless some crazed dude shot you in a pistol just now (which is obvioulsy a product of scientific research), and blood's running out, science obviously isn't killing us. :lol:
-
The answer: NO.
Why?
Are you dying? LOL No. Unless some crazed dude shot you in a pistol just now (which is obvioulsy a product of scientific research), and blood's running out, science obviously isn't killing us. :lol:
Please read more than the thread title before posting.
This was a thread about a perceived trend in recent Hollywood movies, of anything modern or scientific being portrayed as "evil", not about whether or not science is actually killing us.
-
shut up this thread is stupid
-
shut up this thread is stupid
Then ignore it. :P
Marcov: Seriuosly, read the thread first.
-
The answer: NO.
Why?
Are you dying? LOL No. Unless some crazed dude shot you in a pistol just now (which is obvioulsy a product of scientific research), and blood's running out, science obviously isn't killing us. :lol:
Please read more than the thread title before posting.
This was a thread about a perceived trend in recent Hollywood movies, of anything modern or scientific being portrayed as "evil", not about whether or not science is actually killing us.
you should also note that this trend is not new.
-
Heh, on that note, Disney's The Black Hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole) is one of the most anti-science / pro-religion movies I've seen in a long time. xD
-
The answer: NO.
Why?
Are you dying? LOL No. Unless some crazed dude shot you in a pistol just now (which is obvioulsy a product of scientific research), and blood's running out, science obviously isn't killing us. :lol:
Please read more than the thread title before posting.
This was a thread about a perceived trend in recent Hollywood movies, of anything modern or scientific being portrayed as "evil", not about whether or not science is actually killing us.
you should also note that this trend is not new.
Which, the portrayal of science as evil in movies, or Marcov not bothering to read past the thread title?