Month: February 2016

The Lost Works Of Anna Dalton – Part Eight

Without the beginning and ending, of course.

Though the ending is still one of the most touching and genuine displays of devotion – to one very easily abandoned, and for nothing in return – I’ve ever seen.

That’s true friendship.

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A short display of the best actor in a fairly cheezy movie.

The Phoenix Project (2015)

WARNING: Do not let the initial promise of this film convince you to watch the rest. I can’t say it’s all set-up and then nothing, but it is a lot of set-up for a very disappointing, badly written ending.

It’s a cast of four on one set interacting.  Fine, but if it’s character-driven it has to be better acted and if it’s plot-driven then there has to be more plot and the ending can’t suck.

Watched to completion only by people that don’t know they’re in for a “WTF???” at the end.  Be my guest.

Grade: D-

The Lost Works Of Anna Dalton – Part Three

Without words, of course. If music can’t speak to you without words, you’re either dead or a zombie. But I digress…

Slight variations, adapting the piano into the violin playing, altering it to make it work but keeping the basic melody and structure.

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A very moving song; a far superior remake of the original, in a good movie.

Frankenhooker (1990)

A very low-budget-looking horror/comedy.

Nowhere near as ridiculously gory as ‘Dead Alive’, but almost as deadpan tasteless – and good for stupid cool catchphrases.

It’s also not very disturbing, since it’s so unbelievably unbelievable. Beyond the obvious movie reference, it reminded me of what ‘The Brain That Wouldn’t Die’ (a much more creepy, sinister film MST3K’Od) might have been like if they hadn’t tried.

Also makes me think of Queen. No, that’s not Freddie Mercury, though the premise of the movie suggests that it MIGHT be.

Inspirational Quote: “You want a sandwich?”

Grade: C

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Part one (boot camp) is a great, compelling, disturbing short film. R. Lee Ermey is brilliant, and Vincent D’Onofrio’s Private Pyle is a real character: you see him, flaws and all, trying his best but in way over his head. And you can tell from the beginning that there’s something slightly wrong with him…D’Onofrio portrays his descent well, up to and including the ending, which comes too soon.

Part two (off to Vietnam) is a collection of scenes and lines that seem thrown together to make the film long enough – like they came up with interesting individual bits of dialogue and then had to write actual scenes around them, which don’t feel connected. The fact that the characters don’t seem at all real anymore makes it a bit difficult to give a fck, too.

Same as I remembered it: two movies; one great, one ok.

Inspirational Quote: “I AM…in a world…of SH1T.”

Grade: B-

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 115)

OkC Match Question: Would the world be a better place if people with low IQs were not allowed to reproduce?

My Answer: No

Explanation:

This is the longest explanation you will ever read.

Well, first, the basic and obvious reason: denial of free will over reproduction? A “better” place? Are you kidding me? Sounds pretty fascist to me.

For anyone that thinks only people with low IQ’s answer this “No”, I bet mine’s higher than yours. But, yes, you can reproduce. Unless this makes you consider yourself unworthy.

When asked his IQ: “I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers.” – Stephen Hawking

“Whose harmony? Yours? Plato wanted truth, and beauty. And above all, Justice.” – Spock

“Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people; turn them into miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humor?” – ‘Against Method’

“Khan…I’m LAUGHING at the ‘superior’ intellect.” – Kirk

Funeral For A Cause (Angst Lies Bleeding)

(Thanks EJ, BT and DA).

“Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.”

Anti-theists are quick to point out the “logic” of their position by citing absurd examples and referring to debates between theists and Christopher Hitchens, Dick Dawk, and other CA/A’s.

This is intellectual cowardice (thanks DD).

It is intellectual cowardice because the question that must be answered to determine if anti-theism is valid or not is not “Does God exist?”, it is “Is the forbiddance of organized religion a morally good and acceptable goal?”.

My answer is no. I *understand* the anti-theist position (Thanks C and S). I simply do not agree with it.

It is a question of free will. Free will should only be limited if it causes harm, or intrudes on the free will of another being (thanks WR).

Anti-theists argue that religion causes harm. Logically, since they do NOT specify any particular religion, but rather religion as a whole, they argue that all religion is harmful.

This is an illogical conclusion, because it is simply a fact that there are religions that are inherently (thanks AGFTHFRO) peaceful and benevolent; and that many religious people are good, decent people.

Therefore, religion and good – peace, harmony, AND free will – are not incompatible.

Correlation does not equal Causality(thanks IDGAFIMW).

To oppose the causing of harm in the name of religion is humane and sensible.

To oppose the freedom of choice of all individuals regarding religious/spiritual beliefs is contrary to free will – on a subject that is not INHERENTLY harmful in any way – and is therefore improper and harmful to humanity as a whole.

Now, to take pleasure in the gaining of free will, in the shackled sense observed by Einstein, is understandable.

To use that free will to attempt to take free will from others is simply vindictive (thanks CD).

Do you seek to eliminate all religion because you believe the end result is good, or simply out of anger at the repression of your free will (thanks MAWA) and the free will of people in general for so long, before recent general acceptance of atheism?

I’m not nearly as intelligent as some of the other people that have objected to anti-theism on a moral – not religious – basis in the past. This is my admittedly crude but authentic (big thanks JJ) attempt to recreate parts of their arguments in my own words and with my own feelings.

Because, as we all know, human beings are thinking AND feeling creatures (thanks PG and MST3K). Not everything we do is logical. We are not perfect. If we were, we would not be human beings. We would be biological robots (thanks MAWA), and we would be incredibly boring.

I agree that there was a time (thanks JTK and G) when fervent atheism was necessary, in order to achieve general acceptance of the choice of atheism as completely valid. But that time has passed. It is acceptable; at least, as acceptable to those who would intensely dislike it as any other belief that was not in line with theirs.

And for a lot (not all, of course) of you, it’s rather obvious that the reason you feel so reluctant to let go of your anti-theist anger is because it took so long for you to be able to express your atheism. It is a form of venting, of retro-active defiance. In some cases it may be justified…but your motivation is not intellectual (as you strive so hard to make people believe). It is emotional; an attempt to gain revenge (thanks MBTDNAATEFORFA).

In any area where atheism would still get you persecuted and/or harmed, ANY belief not of the theism accepted in that area would get you persecuted and/or harmed. You’ve achieved equality in theory and in practice with all the rest of us humane humans (thanks DM).

Anti-theism is dead (thanks FN).