Jump to content
NEurope

Dannyboy-the-Dane

Members
  • Content count

    14,942
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dannyboy-the-Dane


  1. Of course all opinions are not equally sound in anyone's eyes. Everyone will believe there own opinion is right.

     

    No one said you were a bigot for not agreeing with people. People were saying that those who were sounding as if certain opinions were almost 'thought crimes' were going too far.

     

    Not what I meant. Not all opinions are equally true, factual, logically consistent. Considering homosexuality unnatural or morally wrong is not a logically sound belief, just as believing the Earth was made by a creator 6,000 years ago isn't, either.

     

    But they might as well have meant me. Nobody in this thread has said people were not allowed to have whatever opinion they want; some of us have, however, argued that opinions shouldn't be free from criticism, especially when they do not make sense rationally, and that they should be challenged on that grounds. Is an opinion being challenged now equal to it being a thought crime? Because that's what it sounded like to me.

     

    For the record, I actually completely agree with you about freedom of thought and expression; nobody has the right to not be offended, and everyone has the right to have and express any opinion. But I maintain that no opinion has the right to not be criticised.


  2. I have to admit that I'm VERY fortunate to have such good teeth, because I've only been to visit the dentist twice in my whole life (and one of those occasions was 2 years back to get some fillings).

     

    I hate people like you! :p I have to scrub and clean my mouth constantly to keep it in decent condition. :heh:


  3. Freedom of opinion does not qualify all opinions as equally true or sound; it protects one's right to have an opinion, but it does not protect that opinion from criticism. I will respect anyone's right to have an opinion, but I will not necessarily respect the opinion itself. On the contrary, if I consider an opinion bad, illogical or outright wrong, you can be sure I will criticise it.

     

    But apparently that makes me a bigot who wants to silence people and get rid of freedom of thought.


  4. You say that but what's to say that you are correct? What's to say you are right? They have beliefs which they're entitled to, the beliefs themselves don't hurt anyone it's the actions they undertake which do.

     

    There's no overriding a "critical" way of thinking, it's just their belief which there is nothing wrong with. It's the actions that are I think are wrong.

     

    I've nothing against those that think homosexuality is wrong, in the same way I've no problem with anyone thinking it's fine. For me, I have no problem with homosexuality, some of my family and friends are gay and I've no issue either being so.

    Likewise, some of my friends think it's wrong and unnatural and it disgusts them, I've no issue with them thinking that. They don't act out against anyone so why should I? There's no overriding a critical way of thinking, both trains of thought are fine.

     

    It's the picketing and preaching that I don't agree with. Everyone should be able to form their own opinions on the matter. Which although difficult for their family, it's still possible, the daughter did.

     

    I just think in your sweeping statement that you weren't being as balanced as you tend to be, that's what I meant by what you intend to uphold. You try to be balanced given things you've said on other topics. I just felt this wasn't a balanced view.

     

    Yes I realise completely, I agree with him in that, as I've said. I just thought his sweeping statement that anyone I'm the WBC was incapable of reason wasn't fair to say.

     

    They have the right to have those beliefs, yes, and I would never force them to change, but I will most certainly challenge those beliefs, because there is no logical grounds for them. As such, it does require some suspension of critical thinking to accept them.

     

    Regarding my comment, I don't know what else to say; I've reaffirmed that it was a rhetorical device - I don't actually consider everyone in the WBC incapable of reason. Very few if any people are completely devoid of reason, but how much reason people have varies a lot.

     

    I appreciate your high opinion of me, but I don't know if I try to be balanced - first and foremost I try to be rational, critical and sceptical.


  5. What I tend to uphold? What do you mean?

     

    I stand by that it was simply that, an exaggeration - a rhetorical device; obviously few human beings literally lack any ability to reason - I wouldn't argue for the use of logic and debate if I thought they were beyond such things. My point was that believing the ideas of the WBC requires overriding a special level of critical thinking, and this is often facilitated by the fact that people in the WBC have been brought up there.


  6. In this respect Animal is right. In thinking that nobody in the WBC has the ability to reason I think that you're being too close-minded there Dannyboy, effectively giving up your ability to reason because of how you feel towards the WBC.

     

    It was obviously an exaggerated statement. My point was that I don't think picketing the funeral is going to lead to any epiphanies; the hardcore crowd is too deep in the mindset to catch the irony, and I don't even think it'll do much in the way of convincing the doubters. It comes back to the fact that I don't consider picketing his funeral a strong message at all - quite the opposite: It comes across to me as petty and vengeful and not at all conducive to rational discourse. If we are to bring doubters to our side, what is needed above all, as my point has been, is debate and reason.


  7. I wouldn't even do it for revenge, I'd just do it for experience purposes. It wouldn't necessarily be something that would be fueled with hatred, even if I do dislike them strongly.

     

    Whilst I do agree that they may be too far gone in their own world, if it changes one person's mind to realise the damage they have caused, then, in my eyes, it's a success. This has happened before with someone who used to be a member of their religion so it's not impossible nor is it too late to change their minds.

     

    Normally, I would be the one to agree with you and to say to turn the other cheek but there are some occasions where people need to make a point and, in my eyes, this is one of them moments. As I said, not purely out of hate but more for educational purposes to open their eyes. Even if it is one member of that church who realise the damage they've caused, that's one less evil person and one less evil, ignorant mind and that would be the success and the point in doing so.

     

    They're hoping to 'convert' people to their religion and 'open their eyes' to their world by doing that to good people's funerals, why can't we do the same for the sake of their mind and sanity? That evil man has corrupted them, maybe it takes giving them the same treatment to snap them out of it...

     

    Metaphorical blunt force just isn't the way to enlightenment; at the very least people need to be open to reason before they're able to understand a statement such as that, and I don't think ayone with the ability to reason would still be in the WBC.


  8. Believe me, people like them will not see that at all. I guess they can take it either way: My way (in which they think they have the right to mourn and be allowed the peace that many people couldn't because of the cowardice of the so-called church) or your way (in which they may actually have a decent human bone or brain in their body after all and they'll see that nobody has picketed their leaders' funeral and will see it as pointless and that we are all as one).

     

    Unfortunately, as much as I would genuinely love for them to see it in your view, they won't. I can guarantee it. They haven't gone through the experience of having a funeral wrecked or even gone through the experience of being picketed and hassled with disgusting, atrocious messaging whilst trying to bury a loved one. I mean, imagine having to bury your child and you have them standing there holding signs up wishing for them to die and saying how God is glad they're dead. It's disgraceful and downright disgusting. They don't have the brain capacity to even think "Hold on, we've picketed them but they've not retaliated. Maybe, just maybe, we're all human and we're all different. We'll stop this nonsense right now!". I think they'd think "Right, we've said goodbye and nobody has stopped us because they know we're right. Let's carry on 'converting' other people".

     

    People like Westboro fascinate me, they do, but I can't deny that I really dislike them and everything they stand for. What's worse is that the kids are going through this brainwashing and social services are doing nothing. Those kids need a proper family.

     

    And I can guarantee you that picketing his funeral won't do an iota of good, either. They're too far gone into their own world. Whatever happens they'll still be entirely convinced they're in the right. Revenge doesn't help anyone or make anything better, it only adds to the collective amount of suffering and solely serves to satisfy and fuel negative emotions.


  9. She's just a Linda Hunt clone minus the talent, presence and the incredible voice (some people aren't aware, but she's the God of War narrator). Nothing remarkable about her that

    MV5BMTM0NDg4MzMzNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTUwMTc4Mg@@._V1_SY317_CR14,0,214,317_.jpg doesn't do better in every role she's in.

     

    She's voiced by Brad Bird himself.

     

    Anyway, I love The Incredibles. :heh:

     

    Also, I saw The Secret of Nimh for the first time ever a few days ago. It was immense.

     

    Yes. That film is phenomenal.


  10. Ooh, I've always really liked Dr Christian. This seems like a really interesting show, though at the same time I'm slightly appalled they even need to make it. "And do [the cures] ever actually work?" Well, of course they bloody don't! It's a disgrace that the question is even still being entertained.


  11. I'm in China on holiday. Had a great time in Beijing and am now visiting a friend in Xi'an. Sounds good except my friend basically just decided she didn't want me to be here any more, so made me leave her place and check into a hostel. I am utterly confused as to what I did to upset her, she actually didn't really give a reason. Really out a downer on this trip, I was having the time of my life and now I feel so lonely. I guess I've just got to get on with my trip and put this to the back of my mind, but I don't want to lose a friend over something so stupid. Never fallen out with anyone before so I don't know how to deal with this. Just want to get out of this city, can't wait until I leave for Hong Kong on Saturday.

     

    That's ridiculous. You deserve to know why she threw you out.


  12. Does Daisy die?

     

    In the previous episode, they mention how they're no child-free after Marvin does to college. And if she dies not long before when we see Ted and the Mother telling stories at the inn, it would explain why that would make Ted look upset and how the Mother could say that sentence without realising (I don't see how a dying mother could inadvertently say those words) - she then looks guilty after she realises what she said.

     

    Hm, could be. Did they mention that they're child-free after Marvin goes to college? Another possibility is that Lily is going to die, though we do see her and Marshall grow quite old. In either case, it would be a (yet another) brilliant bait-and-switch after the previous episode.

     

    Back on the "the Mother is dead" theory, there was something I couldn't help noticing: When Robin's mum asks her if she has someone she can depend on etc. and Robin says yes, it's never actually specified that she means Barney, which could hint at the possibility, should the theory that the Mother dies be true, that Ted and Robin could get together again.

     

    Now, given how the series has progressed, I still find this unlikely; Ted's journey for the past several series has been about moving on from Robin, Barney's journey for most of if not the entire series has been about actually falling in love, and Robin's journey has always been about opening up to the idea of settling down in a relationship. It would seem weird if they were to subvert all that in the end, especially considering how much of this last series they've spent on Ted finally letting go as well as showing the compatibility of Barney and Robin.

     

    Before that final scene we also got confirmation that Barney is in fact not exactly like Robin's dad, and the point of difference (Barney is a hugger, which Robin's dad was not) could be considered a metaphor for how Barney is not emotionally distant like Mr Scherbatsky. Another point to consider is how future Ted has consistently referred to Robin as "aunt Robin", which would be very weird if they were in a relationship at that point. The kids' shock to learn that Ted had been chasing "aunt Robin" in the very first episode also suggests that the idea of Ted and Robin being in a relationship is completely foreign to them; if Ted and Robin had ever shown romantic interest in each other since the kids' birth, it seems unlikely they would react with that level of shock.

     


  13. First time training done; it was nice. I think I may have probably underdone it, but then I figure I have to start slow, me being ... well, me. :heh: Slow and steady and all that. I have no illusions of becoming a fitness master, I'd just like to shape up my appearance and health somewhat.

×