Actually I learned to start taking myself too seriously in Highschool where i thought I knew everything and that I was somehow enlightened. Around that time I latched onto Catcher in the Rye and The Great Gatsby as examples of people who only involved themselves in the "phony" world out of necessity. And i thought of noble causes like fighting against ignorance and bigotry. Righting the wrongs of the world and how much better this planet could be without all the "phonies" and "evil corporations"

And then I grew up and realized that assuming I was somehow special and that the world had black and white labels such as "phonies" and "big bad corporations" was due to immaturity. I also realized that because of some very disheartening truths about humanity and society the best I could hope for in this world is to lead a happy/fulfilling life and to hopefully impact my loved ones and community in a positive way.

So when I see some pretentious idiot who has to tear down something he doesn't like in order to portray him/her self as clever or witty, I will occasionally (i have to let a lot slide on the internet or itd be a full time job!) feel compelled to comment and, in this case, hope that they realize that this movie is for fun and some people will enjoy it. Therefore their dumb comments contributed nothing to the conversation, and at best detracted from other peoples enjoyment of this little clip or the movie as a whole.

Realistically no one gave your comment a 2nd thought except for me and the other person who responded to you. I took the time to write this reply out with hopes that you realize that not everyone who comments or calls you out is attempting to compete for "wittiest" or "coolest" or "most genuine" person and maybe just trying to call out how dumb your comment was.

I'm also hoping that if u just eased up a bit and enjoyed things for what they were and not for what you think they should be (ie every movie HAS to be full of insight and meaning) you would find more enjoyment in the world but more than likely you'll see what I wrote as ignorant or misguided and it doesn't apply to you, but your tune may change at some point. I know I did the same thing when my dad tried to convey these ideas to me back then, as I had that same problem for quite a while

>> ^shuac:

>> ^dirkdeagler7:
Take yourself serious a bit much?
...instead it SEEMS to be a movie that doesn't take itself overly serious (lesson to be learned?)
Let me guess, you recently learned about the concept of "taking one's self seriously" and so everything you see, read, or hear is now suddenly an affront to its antithesis?
Yeah, I've been there. For instance, it was a business 101 class in college where I learned about exploitation and how it's perfectly legal. Like Holden Caulfield being so very sick of all the "phonies," I suddenly started noticing all the examples of exploitation. That incredulous feeling goes away after a while.
It's cute, really, to see it as an outsider. So keep on fighting them "serious" people, dirk. The world is counting on you!

Take yourself serious a bit much?

I'm sorry its not a movie about the down trodden person overcoming obstacles and achieving his/her goal
or the close to washed up athlete/musician/politician/cop/fireman/actor/Executive/etc. turning his life around
or the larger than life hero who must quest across 1/2/3 movies to defeat evil and save the universe
or a mystery with a big twist in the middle that suprises you with the person that is trusted most revealed as the villain....and then another twist to make the protagonist a bit more human/gritty/heroic/lovable/not-so-heroic
or a story that is not big and grand but real and full of the art that runs through all of "real" life.
or ....

instead it SEEMS to be a movie that doesn't take itself overly serious (lesson to be learned?) and just tries to have fun with comedy, over the top action scenes, parody of early action shows/comics, and a storyline that is soo outside of reality that you'd think people could put their pretentious expectations for movies aside and just enjoy them-self.

Oh and i hadn't even heard of this movie before i watched this clip, so I'm not exactly a fanboy, but after reading your comment I felt compelled to comment.


>> ^shuac:

Oh goodie. Another I'm-just-a-regular-guy superhero movie based on coloring books. Someone pinch me.

>> ^KnivesOut:
<EM class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/videosift/i/emoticon/smilecute.gif" <img>^dirkdeagler7
There doesn't have to have been a beginning. It's entirely possible that everything has always existed, forever, and will continue to exist, forever.
It's only our abbreviated, framed existence (frame by our own births and deaths) that drives man to assume that everything begins and ends.


I've given this some thought as well, as i said we're limited by our need for time in understanding the universe. However if you think about it the big bang is our biggest fore runner for explaining the universe. We know that time as we know it started at the big bang, and thus our big concern is what existed prior to it right?

I don't know quite how to wrap my mind around it all but to say that maybe the universe as an infinitely dense ball of mass existed forever and the big bang just changed it into our universe is to say that existence in general has always been. That is to say by definition the presense of that ball of mass requires that existence is a given. My problem arises when i consider the alternative to existence which I can not fathom. I feel like it's easy to take existence for granted because it has always been as far as our universe is concerned and its all we know, the entirety of our knowledge is based on it. But scientifically speaking, if you wanted to explain the universe completely and definitively, you have to account for how existence came into being dont you? Otherwise you havent explained how the universe came to be completely. Any book ive read regarding cosmology and the early universe necessarily ignores anything prior to the big bang.

This is the problem that science will face and why you will likely never be able to convince creationists they are wrong. At some point you'll have to come up with an alternative to God creating existence or being existence, whatever. TO do that you have to explain existence. If you just assume that existence has always been, isnt that a sort of "faith" in itself? You have faith that existence has always existed, but until you can prove or explain it, its just that, a belief. IF you come to this conclusion without explaination, then you're just at the point of debating whose belief is more believable/valid, and that unfortunately has no objective outcome.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
I wish people would get their facts straight on this issue.
1) No one who actually understands the theory of evolution says "We came from monkeys"
- The theory actually states that both humans and other primates came from a common ancestor
2) On the issue of morality, God cannot validate some kind of morality. Either a moral principle is intrinsically valid or it is not. I like the example given by Colin McGinn which goes something like this:
If someone says 'It's wrong to murder,' OK why is it wrong to murder? 'Well God says it's wrong.' And that almost seems to work but try it the other way around, 'It's right to murder,' Wait a minute, murder is wrong, 'Well God says it's right to murder.' That second go-around doesn't all of a sudden convince you that it's right to murder. The reason for that is God (or anyone for that matter) cannot simply put a stamp on something and make it right or wrong, the moral rules we have are intrinsically valid or invalid.


I disagree, our moral rules are not intrinsically anything, and they have constantly changed over time. Your example of murder can easily be modified by adding a situation such as "either you murder this person or I kill your entire family or entire city or entire country or entire world" at some point you'd be willing to murder that person. You could argue that its different because the reason for committing murder is so drastic but theres no objective line of whats a justifiable reason to kill someone and what is murder and thus you end up in a practice of subjectivity.

>> ^gwiz665:
You don't have an explanation for God, thus your "explanation" for anything God did is not valid. It is YOU sir, who is the idiot.


This also isnt true, because you're applying the rules of logic and science to a supernatural entity. See creationists have an easy out because they believe in a divine being of uncomprehensible power that is not of this universe (since he created it)and so they dont have to abide by our universes rules. They can just say "he created himself" and how can you argue with that unless you have a thorough understanding of the nature of God, which you can't and thus its not provable or disprovable. It might seem like circular logic if you give it hard thought but the luxury of the faithful is it doesnt matter, all they need is faith that he exists and everything follows neatly after that.

Athiests have it much more difficult because they're trying to explain the world within a very rigid rule set and through our fairly insuffecient (though constantly progressing) technological and academic observation/reasoning. Even more difficult is the fact that even if you could explain everything in the universe with science, the argument can still be made that it all makes sense because God made it in this way. This might seem unfair but again its not something you can prove or disprove and its not something they have to justify based on their faith in an all powerful divine being.

My biggest concern with science trying to explain existence is that at somepoint there had to be "nothing" and this is not the nothingness of vacuum in space, because even that is something. It is a nothingness in which there is no existence at all, time, space (the 3 dimensional space we exist in not the kind we orbit in), or matter. So the question is how did something come from nothing in a scientific and provable way. Now you could argue that because time did not exist then its not a factor prior to the beginning of the universe, however at that point i think we move outside of our ability to comprehend anythng since our very existence functions based on time existing.

To try and explain waht i mean, imagine a cup falling and breaking, this is time in its forward direction. Now imagine it going backwards in time and it flies back up and back together. Easy enough right? So what happens to the cup with no time? Does anything happen? Does something "happening" require time as a precursor to exist? If so then how can anything "happen" without time? I dont know that we can reason that out, however theres always the possibility of mathematics being able to "describe" it as it does dimensions beyond the 4 we're familiar with. As to whether we can ever go much further than a mathematic understanding of such things I sadly doubt.

Again, i havent said anything to support waterboarding or any form of torture. I can definately understand peoples opposition to this method or any in particular.

I do however get annoyed with comments such as those above that have no basis, reason, or contribution to the argument. Last time I checked, solitary confinement, full cavity searches, and many other unpleasent practices are completely accepted, so you can turn that same argument back on yourself, imstellar or raverman.

Do you support solitary confinement? Full cavity searches? how about using food stamps or waiting in line at a welfare office? Well if you havent experienced them first hand than you're too ignorant to have an opinion....seems like pretty dumb reasoning doesnt it?

Most of us havent experienced the unpleasantness of our penal system because we havent committed crimes to warrant it. Many of us haven't experienced many things that people go through on a daily basis that might range from uncomfortable to downright demeaning. Does that mean that we have no basis to form an opinion about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of said things?

I've never experienced having my hand smashed with a hammer, but I can say I completely disagree with its use in interrogation. I also haven't experienced a true "good cop, bad cop" routine, but i have no problem with its use in interrogation.

I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that waterboarding would be a horrible experience, even those who support its use in interrogation can not deny that. So please ease up on the "if u support it then u should have to live through it" cause its very hypocritical unless you dont support any type of negative system in our county that you haven't experienced first hand.

Oh and if anyone is curious, yes i have experienced almost drowning, being held under in a pooly bya cousin playing "Jaws" as a kid and even today I can still remember that it was a horrible experience I'd rather not relive, and I can also say I haven't had any nightmares or long term problems from it. Does that mean my opinion for or against waterboarding carries any more weight? Absolutely not.

Im not advocating torture, warterboarding, or anything of the sort. I want to point out though that you can not speak in objective terms with stuff like this. Waterboarding works by provoking fear and panic in the captive, which understandably can cause mental problems in the long run for some percentage of captives.

If you think about it though, even in your made-for-tv law shows what happens when they have a suspect? They start talking about them going to jail for life, maybe getting pegged as a snitch even if they're set free, maybe its just a longer jail sentence for not cooperating or confessing. Any one of these things is a possible cause of panic, especially if your innocent but being confronted with 20 years in jail for something you didn't do. Now would you argue that even threatening jail time could not POSSIBLY cause long term mental issues? Can you guarantee that everyone comes out of even routine interrogation without a nightmare/panic attack regarding it for the rest of their life? You might argue "but most people would be ok after such questioning" but what if 1% of people had a lasting nightmare or panic attack because of it, what percentage of people suffering side effects is ok or justifiable? Who decides that percentage and what side effects should be taken into account?

My point isnt that waterboarding is like normal interrogation, anyone with half a brain can see its a much more severe method of getting information out of someone and I personally would not want it to happen to anyone i know. But the point is if you say that you shouldn't use panic or fear to coerce confessions or information, then where do you draw your line? Is that line objectively justifiable to everyone? If its not, how do YOU defend where your line was drawn? Who ultimately should decide where that line lies?

And a very good point was brought up, what methods of getting someone to talk who otherwise doesn't want to talk has no harmful effects? Keep in mind i havent even addressed the topic of effectiveness and reliability of information.

So as with many issues that people argue about forever, you may identify that one thing is a problem (such as waterboarding or cutting limbs off) but what is the ultimate solution to the problem of:

How do I get needed information out of someone in a fair and humane way who otherwise does not want to give said information?

With CAREFUL scrutiny on the words fair and humane, which are both subjective terms (not to say I'm wishy washy on that topic, but id hazard a guess that you couldn't come up with a definition of said words that would be agreeable to every person in the US much less the world).

I spose even "Needed" is subjective, is it needed information when you're trying to find out if a suspected terrorist IS a terrorist? Or if the captive might have info on another person we have reasonable or specific intel stating that they are planning a terrorist attack that may kill 1, 5, 10, 100, 1000 people? Lets not forget the obvious and cliche question of, "would you have waterboarded a person if it meant you could have prevented 9/11?" How many peoples lives would need to hang in the balance before waterboarding is justifiable if at all? What about even worse torture? What would you be willing to do for intel that would prevent the detonation of a dirty bomb or small nuclear device in a major city?

This is only shocking to people who are unfamiliar with gaming conversation to begin with. And for that matter people who forget what it was like to be between the ages of 15-25 (give or take).

Males in that age group tend to be vulgar and abusive to each other. If they lived together theyd punch, kick, prank, humiliate each other as well. The fact that these actions are predominantly aimed at the maker of this video is obvious, the name. If someone was named aznsniper, beaner, spictastic, curryking, frenchfry, or any other name indicating personal information about them then they'll likely have insults hurled at them as well. Some maybe more than others but it'll happen eventually.

That coupled with the fact that the maker likely did kill other people and its a gauranteed reaction. If i own some guy its not unlikely he may say something like "lucky shot" or "noob class/weapon" or "RANDOM". But if my names something like the above listed instead I'll hear "go back to mexico" "why dont you go eat some rice" "bomb anything lately?" "surrender to the germans lately?" etc.

I'm not condoning this behavior, but one must accept that certain environments will harbor certain behaviors. If I go into a femanist chat room I should expect to hear unpleasant things about men. If I go into a biker bar I should expect to hear vulger language and unpleasant things about yuppies and import cars. If I go into a gay bar id hear bad things about conservative people.

If I prefer not to be in the presence of such things, i either find a well managed/monitored server or i find a different game. I know a TF2 server i play on will boot people for cussing or lude comments after one warning, and in general i have a great time there.

Yeah I like that they both had respect for each others talent. These are two extremely athletic individuals and it would have been easy for egos to make this a disaster.

It'd be interesting to see how theyd manage in a scrimmage though.

HAHA realism can make a decent game but it often times kills fun factor.

Look at Counterstrike...hardly something most people would consider a "bad game" and its no where near real (IE getting shot 4-5 times with a 5.56 round before dying, or like 7-8 times with a 9mm). This game was FUN to play and thats the whole point of it. Wing commander was not realistic either..such a horrible series!

I wish this game never died down, I played it a TON before switching to Counterstrike back in the day (GTW--Widowmaker for anyone who played back then). Nice to see it in action again!

Unless you keep your kids from watching TV past 7 (and never let them watch cable) they'll see violence (and sex) with little effort.

You also would have to heavily censor their games, friends, books/comics, and pretty much not let them on the internet unless you're there with them the entire time. Also you probably dont want them going to a school since people have ipods/psps that can carry video and music thats inappropriate.

Come to think of it, just don't let your kids out of the house, its not safe from images out there. Look, if your kid can't tell the difference between fiction and reality, and you think they'll act out because of it, you failed at something. In my opinion, the flander's kids are the last thing I want my kid turning into. Part of being healthy is being adjusted to the society we live in, and not all of that is sugar and spice.