>50% chance of sterility and other lifelong severe health issues, 10% chance of death…EVERY FUCKING TIME they deny this type of medical necessity abortion, with zero chance of the fetus surviving to term under any circumstances, not that that would benefit anyone to torture a baby with an excruciating pain filled minimal temporary life of suffering like that would cause.
Proof it’s never been about saving life, it’s all about forcing their religious dogma on everyone, seizing power over people’s lives.

Forget the fact that there’s no chambered heart to beat until around 12 weeks, and not a functional heart with working muscle tissue able to pump any fluid until after 20 weeks, so the entire premise is based on lies, intentional misidentifying a nerve twitch as a “heartbeat” despite there being no heart at all to beat….almost like they think they thought the con through despite not possessing a functioning brain.
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=167987

Waiting for @bobknight33 to say he knows better because he does routine maintenance on ultrasound machines (but has no biology or anatomy education). Sorry, Slingblade, that doesn’t give you knowledge.

It’s not hard to be a Republican with a heart and a mind, it’s absolutely impossible.

Leftist gender bending bullshit books like The Diary of Anne Frank and the Bible?!? 😂

I’m surprised…I didn’t know the right had decided Christianity was just for leftists and abandoned it, like they did facts, reason, honesty, sanity, etc…although it’s outrageously idiotic to think Jesus wasn’t a supreme leftist, so in a way I’m shocked it took this long. Also, Christianity talks mad shit about the ochre hoaxer, your messiah, calling near 100% of his behavior “evil”, like adultery, bearing false witness, coveting, stealing, putting money ahead of god..pretty much every deadly sin and commandment if you believe he murdered Epstein to silence him (oh the stories he could have told about tangerine Palpatine).


You’re going to be left with nothing but Pepe the frog fairy tales about alpha male white men you wish you could be, no math, no English, no history, definitely no art, civics, science, philosophy…... 🤦‍♂️

Person,
Woman,
Man,
Camera,
Prison

I was expecting vertically spinning art

Greed knows no specific political affiliation, nor does charitability. We should all insist on policies that do more to help those in actual need of it, and to reduce rampant profiteering at the expense of human suffering. Squeezing your captive customers just because you can is a pretty universal "dick move." Imagine if we had solid policies in place that actually encouraged giving a hand up to those who've encountered misfortune, rather than treating them as suspicious and dangerous.

I think a big part of the problem, which I was sad to see go entirely unaddressed by the show, is that owning rental properties is such an appealing option for wealthy private investors. The long-term (and generally short-term) returns on real estate in the US have been absolutely bonkers for many years, and it's a much more stable investment than the stock market can prove to be. Professionally, I've been in a position to have an understanding of the finances of many wealthy people, and damn near everyone with net worth of more than a couple million ends up having quite substantial real estate holdings.

How about we instead find a way to award stable profits to those investing in schools, or public parks, or the arts, or... I don't know, anything else which doesn't ultimately take people out of their homes?

CGI = Computer Generated Image….this includes computer altered and purely computer generated images, and includes still and moving images. Perhaps it’s not an industry term anymore, it’s still an English term/phrase I used properly according to every reference I can find.

I’ve offered multiple citations backing that up.

Can you offer any backing up your contention that there’s really no such thing as cgi? Since CG only counts for 3d computer generated objects, what do YOU call computer altered images like aged actors and lighting effects (Blade Runner) on photos/film etc? Can you offer a citation to back you up? The dictionary calls that CGI.

It may be silly to call it that, but not as silly as this argument.
Remember, the CGI tag was there to indicate this was not some attempt to fool people into believing it was real, as you originally accused. So was FX. They both served their purpose, although they had to be pointed out.
Remember, you also wanted to quibble over whether this was “art” as if your liking it or it taking a substantial amount of work to create was the measure.
Now you want to quibble over a lay term that was ONLY intended as an obvious clue that this was altered.

Why?

I’ve explained multiple times why I posted it. If you still don’t know why, you have a comprehension problem, because I was quite clear. I thought it was pretty.

I think you just wanted to gripe.

BTW, bro didn’t take the job at Lucas, and regretted it immediately. He was running a few egghead stores at the time and thought his future was in computer sales. He still works with computers, has been building them since the 70’s (Apple 2) and runs his own server farm and is his own ISP. He stopped making computer art a while ago.

It means both, and everything in between.
Like art, the level of detail, work, or competence involved have no bearing on whether it’s cgi, only is it an image that’s been created or altered digitally. Period.
CGI is not a term reserved for multi million dollar high res photo realistic purely computer created images. Any image altered or created digitally is cgi.
I get that you disagree with the established definition. That doesn’t change it.

Removing a mole digitally is cgi.

Any image generated by a computer is cgi, including alterations. That’s what cgi means!

HA!

this img wasn't generated by a computer. altered [slightly], yes, but filters ≠ CGI. blurring an img, using a blue filter, or cropping an image does not make it "CGI". you can argue the semantics of if it being "generated" by a computer, but arguing it is means all digital photos, images, hell even text of any kind are "CGI". "CGI" is already a stupid, near meaningless term and pushing the definition to "any image that appears or had appeared on a computer in any way" makes it even less useful. [generally VFX/visual effects is the umbrella term people are looking for. CG is the term if they're referring to rendered assets. this is neither. this poor use of language is a huge pet peeve for me.]

imma ignore the "art" argument because that is regularly a black hole of silly and i don't feel the need to engage that but those painted potatoes more effort than this.

I respect your right to be wrong if you wish. 😉

An image generated by a computer is CGI, it doesn’t have to be Avatar to qualify.
Art is art, whether you like and respect it or not. It doesn’t have to be good to be art.
People in England are painting potatoes, inserting some painted nails, and calling it potato art. This took more effort to make than that does, but they are still art just as much as a 3 year old’s drawing or a fresco by Michelangelo is.

you're stretching the terms "CGI" and "art" to their absolute conceptual limits and i respectfully disagree with your use of both. duchamp did more to create "the fountain" than what went into this video.

Ok, maybe slightly, but certainly not as it was presented here.

Even a static filter is CGI…it’s a computer (phone) filter generating an image. It’s exactly what I think of when I think of “effects” for digital photography or videos….what does it mean to you? Since it’s “computer” drawn moving images, it’s animation, no?

Why? Art.
Why would Van Gogh paint swirling stars in “starry night”?
Why would Cyriak dismember a million digital sheep to reform them into nightmare creatures?

Maybe it's the model builder in me, but for that money, I'd go for any DeAgostini model kits. The construction is super intricate that'll take more than a few hours, the finished models are like museum-level art pieces.

Hmm... maybe sell me this puzzle box in pieces that I can build myself in 70+ hours for $200 and I might bite. The process of building it must be more enjoyable.

Congratulations! Your video, MI Senator tells the truth in the face of a hateful lie, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 4 Badge!

Teacher here. It's made-up-nonsense. I don't give a shit what gender or sexual orientation a kid is and im CERTAINLY not going to try to convince anyone to change anything about themselves.

That said, I'm going to acknowledge that gay/trans people exist in authorship and literature as it arises. You can't read someone like Whitman (Leaves of Grass, arguably America's greatest poet) and not come across references to sexuality either implicit or explicit. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45472/i-sing-the-body-electric

It becomes relevant in passages like this:

5
This is the female form,
A divine nimbus exhales from it from head to foot,
It attracts with fierce undeniable attraction,
I am drawn by its breath as if I were no more than a helpless vapor, all falls aside but myself and it,
Books, art, religion, time, the visible and solid earth, and what was expected of heaven or fear’d of hell, are now consumed,
Mad filaments, ungovernable shoots play out of it, the response likewise ungovernable,
Hair, bosom, hips, bend of legs, negligent falling hands all diffused, mine too diffused,
Ebb stung by the flow and flow stung by the ebb, love-flesh swelling and deliciously aching,
Limitless limpid jets of love hot and enormous, quivering jelly of love, white-blow and delirious juice,
Bridegroom night of love working surely and softly into the prostrate dawn,
Undulating into the willing and yielding day,
Lost in the cleave of the clasping and sweet-flesh’d day.

----------------------------------
Maybe a conversation like:

"'Love flesh swelling' like he's in love with some woman and they...he...?"

"Probably not, he didn't have any serious female relationships as far as I am aware."

"But the title is 'The female form'"

"Well, it's possible, but it's not likely the case that he was talking about himself being in love with a woman. This poem is in the text but he wrote many other pieces about he-himself falling into and out of love with various men and we have letters documenting those relationships with his male significant others. Although, I'm not sure what to call them because gay marriage would have been illegal at the time. He's likely writing the poem in a way where he appreciates the female form and sees men who are drawn to it like the way I appreciate watching bees act obsessively driven to the middle of flowers. I like watching Bees in action, but that doesn't mean I'm going all pollen crazy, still I appreciate it for what it is."
-------------------

This is an example of how discussion of sexuality would come up in my classroom as I imagine it. Note how I'm not trying to convince the kid I'm talking to to turn gay like it's a big game of rainbow-red-rover or something. Nevertheless, knowing the author's sexual preference in this instance informs our understanding of the piece.


My own personal theory?
The people railing against things like this are the same shitheads that can't be bothered to read ANYTHING and instead giggle and guffaw at "hurhurhurhur he hadd'a boner" where I get to live an early stage of Idocracy.

Also, I agree that the "funky stuff" shouldn't be just avoided altogether. For goodness sake, just let teachers have the difficult conversation that everyone is avoiding. Reminds me of when Peggy Hill was struggling to say "Penis" when she was assigned sex ed.

More glue than art. And glue sniffing.