Genius! Way better than Hot Fuzz.

Thanks for asking, NR. I wasn't sure how apparent the situation would be without an appropriate description, so you helped my social experiment.

The police were in high speed pursuit of a suspect. Upon refusal to stop the coppers set up a roadblock, and this is geographically where the video begins. The suspect surely saw the car in the road and could have stopped, but decided to slam head-on (apply directly to your forehead) instead. The French fuzz took that opportunity to apprehend that stinker.

^Who let the fuzz and a snitch into our freakout?

I really enjoyed Hot Fuzz... wasn't interested in Shaun of the Dead before now... gonna have to check it out.

The editing in Hot Fuzz was top notch during those lightning quick in-between bits.

Let's not have this argument. Both moves are absolutely genius, perfectly spoofing the genres they're conveying better than any other spoof has in the past.

Instead of "spoofing" a genre by low-brow fart/poop jokes, or lesser actors dressing up as Jack Sparrow and repeating famous quotes with a funny/stupid accent, these guys have taken what was a washed-up genre and have made it an art. Watch Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead, absolutely EVERYTHING does it's job so perfectly. The camera-work, the music, the acting, all of this is so essential to what has made these two films as hilarious as they really are. The funny lines are only half of the humor, the rest is more subtle, yet equally as creative.

In reply to this comment by Omelet:
Hot Fuzz wasn't bad, but not as good as Dead.

Bah! Hot Fuzz was BETTER than Dead. Quite a bit better, in fact. Shaun of the Dead was good, but Hot Fuzz was freaking great.

In reply to this comment by Omelet:
Hot Fuzz wasn't bad, but not as good as Dead.
Bah! Hot Fuzz was BETTER than Dead. Quite a bit better, in fact. Shaun of the Dead was good, but Hot Fuzz was freaking great.

EDIT: Sorry about the profile comment when I meant for a regular reply. That's what I get for posting after Easter turkey and wine.

Hot Fuzz wasn't bad, but not as good as Dead.

Shaun of the Dead is so freaking awesome and British. Hot Fuzz is as good, if anyone hasn't seen it yet.

Downvote (if I could) Sorry but, if he wants to whine about "haters" thats all good, but ZP is not hating as such, just trying to remove all the glitz and fuzz and show you exactly what his opinion of said game is...

Sometimes he is overly vicious, but just damned funny so its ok LOL but honestly, if you dont like, dont watch, and there is nothing smart about fast talking, only when it's charming (or offensive) and clever.

Carry on...

Nice.

My personal answer: Hitler was a Christian, Stalin an Atheist and Travolta a Scientologist. Their atrocities/bad movies are independent actions and should not be used as proof positive that their theological beliefs are evil.

And, to bring us back to do, my original point was only to correct the erroneous notion that Hitler 'was' OR 'considered himself to be' an Atheist.

I guess we have different definitions.

I love a good chat about religion. Hit me up anytime.

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
Triming this for readability.

I dont know enough about Stalin, the reasons for attributing Atheism to him, the interpretation of atheism, and how his actions corelate or diverge, their relivance in praising/condemning his actions, or, his interpretations of communism, comuist dogma, or the "ideals of free thought" whatever they may be...

But, i assume (and .'. make an ass of myself) that you are referring to ideas similar to those referred too here.

My response, as best i can, is that to be Human, is to claim the capacity for both "humanity" (a bloody fuzzy term, but you get what i mean) and inhumanity (equally bloody fuzzy. we come up with ridiculous words to describe things. "that which is good is "our species"" and "that which is bad is our species not being itself" English is ridiculous)

anyway...

any person is capable of any action, be it good bad, boring irrelevant or cool. He/She can claim any dogma/reason/label/ideology for whatever they do. Their claiming it means bugger all. It might be an accurate claim (meaning, a majority would agree that the behavior of theirs, that they claim, is indeed an expression of/in accord with those beliefs, and does indeed match with their own judgment of what those beliefs are defined by), but thats not very relevant either.

A "dogma/reason/label/ideology" is simply what it is, and, what a person does, or does not do, is distinct again.

So.. to your question, as best i misunderstand it.

"does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism" -> did HE claim Aethism? is that why it might be there, to be taken away? or did others claim it of him? (my hazy guess would be that he'd claim it but i dont know an exact quote to that effect)

Either way, one can disagree with the attribution/applicability of that label, if it is felt, that what they sought to do, was not in accord with the label. So, if your understanding of atheism, was such, that you felt, that his attempts to express it, did not ring true to the term, as you understand it, you could deny him his atheism for that reason. if i felt it, so could I.

Theres an interesting thread looking at how language evolves over time, and grammar rules. Its relevant, because the term atheism, is a label, the meaning of which is semi fluid, as our culture is semi fluid. We might be able to broadly agree, in the majority, what it means, but some are likely to want to add shades of meaning, and other people, other shades. Whats interesting, is to ask a specific person, what their personal understanding, and interpretation would be, so as to learn about that person (all that can ever be learned).

so, i'd consider it meaningful to ask a specific person, if they would deny, the application of the atheism label to stalin, but for the reasons given at the start, I'm personally unable too, not being sufficiently knowledgeable of him to know if the label (according to my fuzz interpretation of the label) fits or not. The 2 primary variables, are what i know of him. and, how i define the term.

next part...

"because"

the above was my attempt to explain how i'd consider it possible for a person, to give their view, on fi the term applys or not. the because makes what fallows, a potential reason for determining if it applys.

so, what reason are you proposing:

"his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought"

do YOU consider "the ideals of free thought" to be fundamental to your understanding of the label "atheism"

do YOU consider "his communist dogma" to be sufficiently indicative of his being/actions/personality, that NO label can be applied to him, unless, it can be applied to "his communist dogma" too, as that is so fundamental too him.

so, youve asked of me only a question you can answer for yourself. Does your understanding of atheism, mean, that "the ideals of free thought" are fundamental to it, and, that they conflict with "his communist dogma", which you consider fundamental to him, such that, you feel the label "atheist" as you understand it, cannot be applied to him, to the extend that you know and understand "his communist dogma" and thus, in your view, him.

so... do you?

This gets back tot he first question i asked of you, namely, did you feel Hitler "was" or simply "thought he was"

For me, I'd imagine he might well have "thought he was", truly truly thought that. i dont know if he had "belief in Christ as their personal savior".

I do know he was a jackass, but i dont win points for that.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
(BTW, great conversation.)

So, does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism because his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought?

Triming this for readability.

I dont know enough about Stalin, the reasons for attributing Atheism to him, the interpretation of atheism, and how his actions corelate or diverge, their relivance in praising/condemning his actions, or, his interpretations of communism, comuist dogma, or the "ideals of free thought" whatever they may be...

But, i assume (and .'. make an ass of myself) that you are referring to ideas similar to those referred too here.

My response, as best i can, is that to be Human, is to claim the capacity for both "humanity" (a bloody fuzzy term, but you get what i mean) and inhumanity (equally bloody fuzzy. we come up with ridiculous words to describe things. "that which is good is "our species"" and "that which is bad is our species not being itself" English is ridiculous)

anyway...

any person is capable of any action, be it good bad, boring irrelevant or cool. He/She can claim any dogma/reason/label/ideology for whatever they do. Their claiming it means bugger all. It might be an accurate claim (meaning, a majority would agree that the behavior of theirs, that they claim, is indeed an expression of/in accord with those beliefs, and does indeed match with their own judgment of what those beliefs are defined by), but thats not very relevant either.

A "dogma/reason/label/ideology" is simply what it is, and, what a person does, or does not do, is distinct again.

So.. to your question, as best i misunderstand it.

"does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism" -> did HE claim Aethism? is that why it might be there, to be taken away? or did others claim it of him? (my hazy guess would be that he'd claim it but i dont know an exact quote to that effect)

Either way, one can disagree with the attribution/applicability of that label, if it is felt, that what they sought to do, was not in accord with the label. So, if your understanding of atheism, was such, that you felt, that his attempts to express it, did not ring true to the term, as you understand it, you could deny him his atheism for that reason. if i felt it, so could I.

Theres an interesting thread looking at how language evolves over time, and grammar rules. Its relevant, because the term atheism, is a label, the meaning of which is semi fluid, as our culture is semi fluid. We might be able to broadly agree, in the majority, what it means, but some are likely to want to add shades of meaning, and other people, other shades. Whats interesting, is to ask a specific person, what their personal understanding, and interpretation would be, so as to learn about that person (all that can ever be learned).

so, i'd consider it meaningful to ask a specific person, if they would deny, the application of the atheism label to stalin, but for the reasons given at the start, I'm personally unable too, not being sufficiently knowledgeable of him to know if the label (according to my fuzz interpretation of the label) fits or not. The 2 primary variables, are what i know of him. and, how i define the term.

next part...

"because"

the above was my attempt to explain how i'd consider it possible for a person, to give their view, on fi the term applys or not. the because makes what fallows, a potential reason for determining if it applys.

so, what reason are you proposing:

"his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought"

do YOU consider "the ideals of free thought" to be fundamental to your understanding of the label "atheism"

do YOU consider "his communist dogma" to be sufficiently indicative of his being/actions/personality, that NO label can be applied to him, unless, it can be applied to "his communist dogma" too, as that is so fundamental too him.

so, youve asked of me only a question you can answer for yourself. Does your understanding of atheism, mean, that "the ideals of free thought" are fundamental to it, and, that they conflict with "his communist dogma", which you consider fundamental to him, such that, you feel the label "atheist" as you understand it, cannot be applied to him, to the extend that you know and understand "his communist dogma" and thus, in your view, him.

so... do you?

This gets back tot he first question i asked of you, namely, did you feel Hitler "was" or simply "thought he was"

For me, I'd imagine he might well have "thought he was", truly truly thought that. i dont know if he had "belief in Christ as their personal savior".

I do know he was a jackass, but i dont win points for that.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
(BTW, great conversation.)

So, does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism because his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought?

Raven, i'll try to explain from what i got from the current discussion in germany. Please keep in mind i'm not a native speaker and that i have to look up most of the words...

So our secretary of inner affairs wants to ban scientology because he sees them violating our constitution. Some constitutional laws involved are:

* "Neutralitätsgebot". the state is not allowed to identify with any religion because it is home of everyone and indentifiying could hurt someone's feelings. I don't know much about scientology but it seems a neutral state is not on their agenda. by the way this constitutional law is the reason why no one employed by the state is allowed to wear headscarfs etc (in Germany teachers are state employed).
* both fundamental and human rights. the secretary claims that scientology wants to limit and/or abandon some of them
* Our constitution declares a democratic society, that seems to be incompatible with scientology
* their pursuit of political power and influence, both subject to various laws.

That's just the most basic stuff, sorry but that is all i can give you i guess. It's hard to really follow the discussion even in German, so translating is not easy.

Regarding your other question about parts of the constitution outlawing certain organizations: yes, that's true. Though that's very hard to explain to someone from the States (i already tried before). Germany is a free country and you are free to say whatever you want. EXCEPT most Nazi related stuff for example. So if you wear symbols (swastika, runes, skull & bones, etc) of old nazi organizations on your clothes for example you can get arrested. It's only legal to use those symbols in an educational or historic manner, anything else is against the law. btw that's the reason why games like Wolfenstein etc. are banned in Germany. From what i've heard that's a big difference to the US.

No person, party, organization etc. is allowed to do "incitement of the people" (sorry that's a one-to-one translation), a term that is true for most Nazi related stuff. That's why if you deny the holocaust to have happened or similar stupid stuff you're not only violating "some" laws in Germany, you're messing with the constitution and you're in deep trouble.

So in short: Anything that is not compatible with the values of the constitution (neutral state regarding religion, no incitement of the people, no nazi shit, human & basic rights, democratic society etc.) can be banned. It doesn't matter if it's a party, a book, movie, organization etc.

Especially around religion there's a constant fuzz (teachers and headscarfs is a hot topic lately). And Nazism of course is also always on the supreme courts radar. There's a very right-winged party in Germany, they've chosen the colors of the third reich (black, white, red) for their logos and they are infiltrating schools since a few months. Most of the people and politicians want to outlaw them because of offending the constitution and their closeness to nazism but it's hard to proof and there's also the right of free speech and the right to form political parties...

But that's all more or less details. I hope i could help somewhat. If there's anything else you like to know feel free to ask :-)

These guys rock thought Shaun of the Dead was much better than Hott Fuzz