Oddly enough this review of Clones made me buy The Empire Strikes Back - hence the Amazon post.

Just saw Empire Strikes Back with my 4-year-old and 8-year-old who were watching for the first time. So excellent to see it through their eyes. "I don't like the snow monster." "Han Slolo [sic] is going to sleep through the winter?" "Luke is dreaming about Vader again right?" "Are they going to fix Luke's hand?"
At least they don't have to wait 3 years to find out what happens next.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'family guy, luke skywalker, chris griffin, empire strikes back, star wars' to 'family guy, luke skywalker, chris griffin, empire strikes back, star wars, supershort' - edited by gwiz665

Damn you! I was going to post that. The area in the first minute of the video is the area where George Lucas filmed the scenes from Hoth in Empire Strikes Back.

>> ^crillep:
I don't think this discussion is about the definition of fear but, I will try to clarify. If you do not pay your taxes, then you will most likely fear the IRS, or if you will, feel anxiety. Which is good, because this emotion tells you that you should've payed your taxes. Now if you are a man of faith, this same anxiety might help you to obey the rules of that particular faith. [1]
You say that cannot be, because you cannot prove these rules to be moral/right/whatever (at least thats how I read it). My response is, that that is besides the point, whether or not you agree with it, you have the same motivation to follow those rules. Let's just assume that people aren't following religions that they fundamentally disagree with. I certainly wouldn't. [2]
Moving on to your comment about right and wrong, you chose a good example when you mentioned murder. If your wife is murdered, and you want to strangle the SOB that did it, there are certainly a number of fears that could prevent you from doing so, including your faith. Take away these fears, and I don't think your response will be what is considered rational today. Again you can call it fear or anxiety or conscious intimidation, but there is a motivation there.
This is only one example, and certainly an atheist doesn't have to be a murderer in the above situation. Either way you are following a code of morals. So whether or not you are afraid of what you will become in your own eyes, or in Gods eyes, you still have a fear motivated response. Now obviously you can't say that your set of morals is better than some religion, because we agree there is no proving right and wrong. And hopefully this wall of text shows that fear can also be a good motivator for moral issues. NOT ALWAYS, BUT SOMETIMES. [3]
I think that people are having so much fun pointing out the flaws in various religions, that they have forgotten some very basic facts. Like the fact that freedom of religion is something that we are incredibly lucky to have. And the fact that so many people have some form of belief system (80% of the world in some polls) shows that it's not just bogus. It's a dominating force in our world that matters to alot of people and they should be treated with the same respect as everyone else. [4]

Finally, what I would like to stress the most is that it is EASY to be a religious person who also believes in science, evolution, the works. One does not cancel out the other. I'm neither religious nor atheist, but I respect everybodies beliefs. When it comes to atheists I think there should be less focus on bickering with with various religions and more focus on getting religion out of the schools and out of the goverment, that's a cause I can support. [5]
Finally I should mention that you didn't deserve the comment about me lecturing you earlier gwiz, but it pisses me off that dbarry3 gets a -6 rating for critizing the video, and you get +10 for saying that fear isn't a factor when it comes to gay marriage. Thankyou captain obvious. [6]

I'm gonna cut as much to the chase as I can, so I don't make too much of a wall of text too (as I usually do).

[1] I suppose I have separated fear from this feeling, since my definition of fear is more basic than that, which is why my "fear of tiger/government" is vastly different, in my opinion. One is a personal, emotional response, the other is a conscious decision, weighing your actions vs. the consequences, thinking it through. If we must use the term fear, then I think the distinction between "basic fear" and "conscious fear" is a good one to make.

[2] I don't say that it cannot be, but that it should not be. I feel I need to make another distinction here, because there are different types of actions and associated motivators.

Now, I don't think that an action can be inherently good or bad, any judgment can only come from someone's point of view. However, actions are deemed good/bad by yourself, from your own perspective, of course, and that's what I mean when I talk about good/bad actions now.

If you avoid an action that is bad, purely for the reason that you fear what might happen if you do the action, then you are indeed working from fear, and I think this is a bad thing; a bad motivator. It is far more rewarding if you make a conscious deliberation of the action, instead of responding to fear. To drop my own sci-fi quote, fear is the mind-killer (if you know where it's from, I instantly like you more). In the same vein, a good action should be done because you deem it to be good, not because you are told to do it by whatever external medium - you should have some sort of moral center that you use to weigh your options, not just act out of fear of repercussions.

[3] Anger and passion, like fear, kills the mind and make you do irrational things. The example indeed show that, and there are instances where the mind is disabled and you more basic instincts kick in, in these instances it's a good thing that we do have some fear of what will happen to us, if we do an action. You are indeed correct that here, the fear is a good de-motivator to avoid an action. But, like I said, it shouldn't be - the mind should not be disabled, the conscious decision to not do the action is a far better motivator, since you will know not to do it, because it is a bad thing to do, both from your own perspective and many others'. The developed mind should not look to external judgments for its actions, it should be able to decide it for itself. Of course, we do not have any a priori knowledge of morals, but we do have critical thinking, and we can weigh options without consulting gods, laws or rules. Thrusting the judgment away from yourself to some higher power is in the end a form of moral cowardice, in my eyes. That's not to say that you should say that your way is the right way always, and everyone else is wrong - but if you are critical of your own reasoning too, you will be able to weigh the options justly. Many people have tremendous troubles with this and are blind of their own faults and shortcomings (myself included).

[4] Freedom of religion is indeed a good thing to have. If we didn't have that, we would not be nearly as technologically and sociologically advanced as we are now, but the fact that many people believe in a thing shows nothing. Many people used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. In itself the belief in something is worthless as even circumstantial evidence. Faith is, regrettably, a powerful force in our world still, but science and enlightenment is steadily pushing it away. And thank goodness for that. Beliefs should only be respected if they can be justified; politics are not very respected either, but I think politics deserve more respect than religion still. Just because you see your own faith as a holy cow, doesn't mean that we should not question it. If it can withstand it, then good for you and it, but if it cannot then it's not worth believing.

[5] No. This is just plain false. You have to make incredible leaps of logic to believe in both religion and science, because they do cancel each other out on many, many points. I will go so far as to say, that if you are an intellectually honest person it is not at all possible to be a religious scientist. You will not be looking at your religion with the same skeptical eyes as science and the world around you, or it would be discarded. It does not stand up to challenge and is in the end a waste of your time. Faith is always blind, or it wouldn't be faith.

I am also not convinced that you can make a third separation of religious/atheist/other. You're either religious or you are not, if you are not, then you are by definition an atheist (or non-religious). The word Atheist has gotten a stigma when the religions have tried to strike back through places like Fox News, where Atheism is upheld as a belief-system of its own, which it is not. Whatever word you put on it, you can either believe in God or not, there is really no middle-ground, other than not having an opinion at all, and then I would clump you with the non-religious as well, like we do with fairies. You may not have considered the actual existence of fairies, but not having an opinion is far close to disbelief than belief. One is active, the other is passive. I respect people, with as much respect as they deserve, but I do not respect their beliefs, and we damn well shouldn't either. Tolerance goes both ways, and they don't tolerate us - turning the other cheek isn't my bag, I'll punch back if they slap me. This is the exact place where your quote entirely applicable:

"The first duty of every person is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which our society is based. Now, if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to have the freedoms provided by our society!"



http://www.videosift.com/video/Dr-House-on-Religion-016

If anyone, I exert myself as much as possible in the name of truth, more people should. I present the truth from my perspective, but as objectively as I can.

[6] I think debarry3's downvotes are as much directed at his form as his substance. It is a passive-aggressive attack on everyone who upvoted this video, and that is not appreciated. His argument for god-fearing is not really a good one either, so combined the downvotes were inevitable.
Making an obvious observation is not always a bad thing, like the 9 votes indicate. Like earlier, I didn't say that fear was not a factor, but that it should not be a factor. I'm certain some pious people fear the gays and their merry ways.

[7] I fail at not making a wall of text...

Okay, so I'm ending this shindig and handing out the awards.

Gold: EDD, who gets three promotes for his story, because it involved math and striking back at authority (two of my favorite hobbies).

Silver: UsesProzac, for her courageous battle with the supreme darkness that is education mistresses with short tempers and low IQs.

Bronze: Ornthoron, because I just can't bear to leave him without a medal.

Fourth: videosiftbannedme, because I also did the same thing with orange juice and Diet Pepsi. Luckily I didn't have a mammy who forced me to drink it all. Cheers!

Fifth: Throbbin, because that was the perfect "feel-good" story I was looking for.

And last, but not least, we have Fusionaut for his gate story. Thanks for hanging in there.

Honorable mention: Rasch, who quoted my favorite song, but forgot that Crowns get nothing from me!

And longde, millions of children around the world are out back, ready to kick your ass.

Thanks everyone! See you next time I have eight promotes!

lol, thanks for the promote

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
*promote because zifnab just doesn't have enough votes

>> ^flechette:
Poor Shepppard! Clerks, Mall Rats, Dogma, and Clerks II all have some tie ins.


And jay and silent bob strike back has a few nods to certain things, but I just never realized that the funeral they're going to was the chick who died in Mallrats.

In mild defense of David Lynch...
* David Lynch is capable of making non-surreal movies and making them very well.... the Elephant Man, The Straight Story... I'm sure Empire Strikes Back would have been great if he did it.
* Lynch got the DGA to allow him to remove his name from the credits from at least one version of Dune. Parts of the movie weren't so great (Sting) but parts were awesome weren't they? Like the Guild Navigators?
* Dune was on the table to be made before Star Wars. I think it was on a commentary I heard people involved say that Tatooine (Skywalker's desert planet) was basically stolen from Dune because the pre-production illustrations of Dune were seen by the folks who did Star Wars... same company I guess. They showed the illustrations and it was kind of surprising.
* This video would have better if they dubbed over Darth Vader the voice of Dennis Hopper saying "mommy mommy, baby wants to fuck" as he huffs on the nitrous tank from Blue Velvet.

>> ^petpeeved:

Her closing statement damning the apology struck me as marvelously myopic, however.
Megyn Kelly: "[The article] didn't mean to encourage violence against women? That's it? How about encouraging hate, intolerance, misogyny?"
How about that indeed, Ms. Kelly.


Doesnt playboy encourage misogyny either way ? oO

in terms of a series, it has to be lord of the rings - all 3 films are at least good.

half of the star wars movies are frustratingly wank, the majority of the star trek movies are wank, the first matrix movie was followed by an incredible amount of wank, and as i've never seen a harry potter film i'll just have to guess that they're all pretty wank.

best individual film though: empire strikes back

Wow, it's even better than the 30-second Bunnie flash clips that have been floating around forever.

Best one I've found...

STAR WARS: EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: Boy is abused by midget, kisses sister, attempts patricide.

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by rottenseed.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Arj-Barker-Strikes-back-at-the-Audience

Dupe.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Arj-Barker-Strikes-back-at-the-Audience