Was it any better? Episode 1 sucked hard, and commercials made episode 2 look worse.
I felt it suffered from the McFarlane curse, by which I mean when he's in a live action movie, he's just not that funny and always has to insert some touchy feely or serious storyline that destroys the comedy.
Seth....be funny, or be serious. You can't be both, and trying makes you neither.

Definitely cute...its sad that things are such a mess that commercials feel the need to be touchy feely.

Ads can, and may try to use touchy feely emotional ploys to sell their products, but they run the risk of being called out on it.
When the cheesy emotional ploy has absolutely zero to do with the product, they SHOULD be called out...keep in mind that this kind of BS misdirection resulted in our current president elect.
Appealing to people's emotions with schlock rather than using information to appeal to their rationality usually means a rational argument can't be made. The more this MO persists, the worse it gets. I never liked that type of ad, but these days I detest them for their lack of information and attempts at emotional triggering to get your money.

Oh, and that touching without consent thing (a.k.a. groping)? That makes me want to hand out business cards to women so they can call me to kick these guys in the balls. I really hate that, I really loathe those touchy-feely-fuckers. It reached a point where I actually try to avoid touching women without clear invitation as good as I can.
These men need to be publicly shamed for such behaviour. Make a scene. A big one.

That just made me realize that "provocative" is entirely the wrong word; and our vocabulary about women's appearance is a big part of what perpetuates the problem. Provocative implies you're being deliberately provoked to some kind of action. But you're really not.

As a mature and respectful man it's fine to think to yourself "wow, that is a sexy outfit", and keep walking. There's a time an place to say that, just as there's a time and place to get touchy feely, but it's never on the street with strangers. You can control yourself, easily. And if you genuinely can't, going outside is probably not the best idea; there be ladies about.

Dude @dystopianfuturetoday Read the effing books. If you have any interest at all, you're doing yourself a great disservice by just watching the show. I'm serious, read the books. Every episode you watch is going to ruin the experience of the books a little bit more.

Now that I've had some time to think about it, I guess I'm comfortable with the major event of Dale's death at least. I would like to have seen the comic narrative played out by real actors but I guess we just all have to accept that it's not going to happen. But if they are going to take the series in different directions, then in order to remain at least similar to the comics, all characters must be fair game at all times. Not only that, but the idea of important people dying for stupid, pointless reasons is also central to the books.

In fact, if the books have one major through-line that would be essential to the TV series if it was supposed to be similar at all, it's this: Every single chapter needs to be an exercise in how you can make a situation worse than you thought possible. Any positive improvement in the situation of the characters should be just positive enough so that you can be let down again by the next major catastrophe.

And that's why TV might not be a good medium for this show. Because according to tradition, TV absolutely must have some bullshit, touchy-feely message at the end of every bullshit episode. And must never-ever-ever-ever broach even semi-serious subjects like the relationship between a nineteen-year-old and a sixty-year-old, and certainly never one so serious as how to treat a child who has committed murder.

I can't believe a sport this touchy-feely is from uber-macho, conservative Turkey.

This message is just a bit too touchy-feely watered-down cliché for me. As Greta Christina has just pointed out (starting at 35:35), anger is essential to any social justice movement. To ignore that anger, and not channel it is to give power to those whom you are angry against. The Dalai Lama ignores the fact that people with discipline can feel anger, and still determine right from wrong.

The coaches wanted the rule? Screw the coaches. The game is not played for them. Oh, I'm sorry you don't like the showboating. Tough S#^$. When did the touchy feely people take over football? Is this how its going to be from now on? Will the QB be doing plays based on which one will not hurt the other teams feeling? I would say there should of been a riot at that point but I'm sure it illegal to say that. Watch out Hockey your next.

I upvoted this because I believe this is part of the future of science. It is easy to dismiss these concepts as new age touchy-feely stuff and poo-poo it out of hand.

But it is similar to something discussed in this vid http://videosift.com/video/Dark-Energy

70% of the universe is unexplained and for "placeholder" purposes, it is now called Dark Energy, until scientists can figure it out. This wasn't even a question 50 years ago, now our brightest minds are looking into it.

"Gaia consciousness" could well be the Dark Energy of the future.

Until then, whether it exists or not, it is fact that we are seriously screwing with the ecosystems of this planet. So whether there is "collective intelligence" or not, we had better get on to seriously changing our behavior.

>> ^criticalthud:

They're still engaged in a primitive debate.
Conceptually, we can't even get passed the notion that god is a singular "being" like us, rather than a vast intellectual complexity - that only becomes more complex as evolution continues. and we are all part of that process. recycled energy in an infinite process.
we're just so fucking self-centered that we miss the the intelligence that is all around us, and just how interdependent we are on the biodiversity we are mindlessly destroying.
we miss the fact that there is a collective intelligence of this planet, without which, we would be nothing. and instead of nurturing it, we're jerking off.

It just sounds to me that more Christian parents want to micro-manage their kids lives so they can completely indoctrinate them into the church and ensure they can't stray and start lives of their own.
I think maybe they need to justify the lifetime they spent being brainwashed by ensuring that it wasn't for nothing.

On the flipside, I've seen youth ministries doing amazing things for kids and teens. Sure sometimes they go over the top, but I've seen small churches take large groups of youth and give high risk kids a place where they can have fun and relate to other teens without the fear of mom coming home drunk again or dad steeping in for a "touchy-feely"

A huge population of youth out there have no parental support or guidence and churches are stepping in to provide that.

I'm also seeing kids growing up in rule-less homes finding a lifestyle that heals all the hurts and then turning around and forcing their parents to join with them and leading their parents out of chaos.

I volunteer weekly for a local youth group. It's located in a church that recently removed it's stage, carpets etc. from it's main hall and convert it into a gymnasium and put in a coffee bar. there are about 100 grade 4-6s and about 200 teens that show up every week. That's almost bigger than the churches entire congregation.

I go, not for the religion, but to help and counsel the kids. Kids are amazing and I always find that the biggest trouble makers are the ones that end up (eventually) being the leaders in the groups. I grew up high risk as well and was always in need of support. I had a Big Brother that came and hung with me once a week for a while and I realized what a difference that made in my life. I value the difference these programs can give kids and support them with or without religion.

So in my opinion, this view about segregation being a bad thing is extremely miss-guided.

@SDGundamX

I hope I've done the tag properly. I prefer notifications to be set to 'off' because I get enough junkmail from the other bazillion websites I'm registered to as it is, so yeah I don't pay much attention to that stuff.

Anyway, on to your reply!

Speaking of assumptions...

Oh boy! Here we go!

...I’m noticing that you tend to make a lot of them. You assumed, for instance, that I was a Christian. You assumed that I was trying to defend a particular religion or religious practice.

Yes, I did, as I've already admitted. It was a fine display of all the common symptoms of a religious apologist/troll, touting all the usual old and tired canards I've heard repeated ad nauseum; unjustified and arrogantly pronounced assertions with no evidence to ground them to reality, a blatant false equivocation, and flat out wrong characterizations of Hitchens et al's position. I'm genuinely sorry I had you falsely pegged but when it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck...well, y'know. In other words, you probably could have done a better job of elucidating and then justifying your opinion.

You assumed (and continue to assume) that I am calling Hitchens and the rest fundamentalists. I am not. I could not. Atheism by its very definition cannot be “fundamentalist” as this article explains. What I said was:

I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against.

Your words are right there above mine. They are zealots that rival the fundamentalists they are opposed to, in their zeal to exterminate (I call bullshit on this, they seek to marginalize it not destroy it) religion. On what planet is this not a false equivocation? On what planet am I to not take you at your word? You still haven't provided evidence for this or the other claim that they even wish to exterminate religion, as well. Because they don't. If you don't stand by your wording then retract it. You really haven't read anything from them other than what you have learned from secondary, tertiary sources, have you?



...that they refuse to revise their absolutist statements about religion being the cause of evil or the spreading hatred even when faced with evidence of religion instead bringing good into the world (on the blog—the story of Hitchens and the taxi driver who went to great lengths to return Hitchens’ lost wallet because the driver’s religion demanded he do so).

This evidence exists in heaps and bounds—I would guess (though I don’t know for sure, granted) in equal amounts to the evidence that religion spreads hatred. Regardless of the amount, in the face of the fact that such evidence exists at all, Hitchens’ previous statement (the one made in this clip about religion being the primary cause of hatred) becomes wholly untenable.


Are you seriously attributing the fact that moral people can exist within the institution of a religion and still be moral, to the religion itself? Could you name a single decent thing a religious person can do that a non-religious person couldn't? What kind of morality do you think preceded the origins of the Muslim cab driver's religion? The exact same morality that has always existed between humans and other humans on some level, that of mutual altruistic behavior, the "golden rule" and that the Abrahamic religion has co-opted into the rest of their vile ideology. You have your causes and effects here reversed, human morality is what it is in spite of religion, and to invoke religion where its not even a necessary requirement is to trivialize the very thing that enabled homo sapiens, as inherently social animals, to get to where we are today in this technological age without destroying ourselves in the process.


In regards to the so-called ad hom: I feel this applies to your post because you appear to be dismissing my argument before even considering it since you start off suspecting I don’t think clearly.

Well, you are wrong. I obviously read your whole reply before I responded. What you feel is irrelevant. Did you just read that one line and then ignore everything else I said? I mentioned the "not thinking clearly thing" purely as an aside, I then went on to address your points. Ad hom doesn't apply, sorry. It would've if that was all I supplied as the basis of my argument; I didn't say "You do not think clearly, therefore you are wrong". Ad hominem isn't what you wish it to be so stop abusing the term.

This brings us back to the Gnu Atheist’s confrontational tactics—in that link you gave me, the writer explicitly endorses being rude. I’m not here to tell you it isn’t a valid tactic—it most certainly is.


Being unflinchingly truthful and not kowtowing to the religious lies/claptrap and ridiculing those whose faith is threatened (who would have no qualms about being as rude and demeaning as possible in telling me so) by my sole existence is rude now. You should tell those uppity gays to be more polite and not stand up for equal treatment, in whatever way they choose as long as its non-violent/within the boundaries of the law, maybe their oppressors would stand down. No, confrontation is the answer if you want to change speak out and "business as usual". I consider lies to be harmful and rude and demeaning to an individual deserving of being treated like an adult in the marketplace of ideas, even the most comfortably benign, fluffy touchie-feelie ones.


I’m here to question it’s efficacy.

It was already pretty clear to me but thanks. It looked to me like you had already decided. You may NOW be appearing to question that, but again, what you may have meant certainly isn't what you wrote and to expect others to be able to know is dickish. I agree it's a good question still but haven't provided evidence to show its efficacy. So let's refrain from the assumptions. All I know is it wasn't some accommodationist, overly polite wank, unwilling to get his hands dirty to enlighten me, that stirred the feelings I've secretly held for so many years about my existence and God, it was someone who was NOT afraid of confrontation in surgically disillusioning my cherished notions of reality, of showing just how ridiculously absurd the whole thing is. It is a matter of ethics to value truth more than(key words) some default arbitrarily designated level of respect.

So, what I was trying to say in my original post is that it annoys me that Hitchens and the rest continue onward with their blanket absolutist statements despite the fact that there exists evidence to the contrary.

Saying religion, of all kinds, is the primary (meaning secondary and tertiary factors also contribute but don't even approach the monopoly religion has on spreading misery, violence, and hatred) isn't really a controversial statement at all to me. History tells us much. Can you think of any other more divisive human social construct that has caused more strife throughout history? Shall we play the game of "add up the bodies"? It boggles the mind to think of where humanity might be right now if not for the Dark Ages.

For instance, just because some people use communism to establish totalitarian regimes, doesn’t make communism evil.

Communism is as much an ideology based on fantasy as religion. In so far as it is not based on evidence and reason and being willfully enforced/propagated, it is harmful.

So, my question for you is, is being rude and disrespectful to people an effective arguing technique? Let’s be clear, I am not saying we need to respect other people’s ideas.


It certainly can be effective. I have no real evidence besides anecdotes and the correlative fact that religious membership levels in the US/Britain have been slowly declining since around the time the Gnu Atheists began to speak out and be more prominently featured in the media/Internets in general. The level of ridicule should be in proportion to the level of bat-shit insanity of the beliefs held. No one is championing a one-size-fits-all approach.

To tie all this together, let’s talk about one last assumption you made. You assumed I didn’t want to reply to your questions because I was trying to dodge the issue. I’d like us to be clear on my true reasons for not replying (so you won’t have to assume anymore).

I (like you, I imagine) happen to be a very busy person. I work full-time and put in a lot of unpaid overtime. I also have a beautiful family and good friends that I want to spend my free time with. This limits the amount of time I can spend on the Internet. So I have to choose when and how to respond to posts wisely.

Fair enough, I wouldn't accuse someone of dodging for being busy. I do not expect replies either, I hold you to nothing except your own words. I accused you of dodging because, when asked, you didn't provide much in the way of evidence to justify your assertions or a flat-out retraction. I could say this in any number of polite ways, you simply didn't.

You, from the very start of your post, set out to pick a fight.

Guilty as charged!

You made completely unfounded assumptions and then attacked an imaginary opponent that you mistook for me.

I made the assumption you were religious and was wrong, the rest still stands. You don't want others to take your word for it? Then add some more words! What you may have "meant" is not what I got pissed off at and responded to, understand this already.

Why should I spend it defending or searching the Internet for proof for an argument I never actually made (the “reality/validity” of Christianity; the fundamentalism of atheists like Hitchens)? Why should I try to reason with someone who from the very outset displays such misguided behavior?

That's my whole point! You shouldn't have said anything at all if you didn't have anything truthful to say in the first place. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about when you talk about them and you rightly got called on it. I already addressed where I made any assumptions about you, the rest is through your own doing. You have NOT shown that they rival those fundamentalists they oppose, you have NOT shown that they wish to eradicate religion, you haven't even shown how they are zealots. You are being incredibly dishonest to the point of absurdity!


Thanks for reading this to the end. As a footnote, here is a link to a discussion on that web site you gave me that I found very interesting. Most of all, I found JoiletJake’s comments interesting—see posts #139 and #146 in particular, as I believe they are similar to my views on religion.


I've already read them and just re-read. Joilet comes off as incredibly honest, humble considering his position, and its pretty plain to see that the response he got, while initially bumpy, gradually warmed up to him as he elaborated and made it well known he is relying solely on his personal feeling in the matter and not trying to assert an attribution of those feelings onto actual reality. I think its great your attitude aligns with his, it may not be logically consistent but at least it's pretty harmless on the whole. Notice he wasn't tossing out baseless assertions, straw manning, or falsely equivocating.

I'd really enjoy it if you were to paste/copy what you said on Pharyngula and see how different the reaction would be. Such tasty schadenfreude! My guess is you would be entertainingly dismantled, rudely perhaps, but dismantled nonetheless. Welcome to the Internets.

I really have no interest in continuing this conversation, as lovely and downright tedious as it has been. I am done responding the minutiae of your several attempts at special pleading. Think whatever you want about the Gnu Atheists, whatever keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay.

>> ^burdturgler:
You're right. Let's all go watch one of your sifts.
>> ^ToastyBuffoon: ... Nothing to see here, move along.......



Never claimed to be the king o' sifts. Just stating the obvious that there is no controversy to be found in the video like the title would have you believe. No need to get all touchy feely about it.

There's also the possibility they will select "false atheists", who are simply theists who are "angry at God" for some tragedy in their life. They can be persuaded to come back to the church with some of that touchy-feely circular reasoning. If you've every heard of a very religious person who says they used to be an atheist, that's what happened to them. They never actually rejected magical thinking, or fully embraced logic and reason.

There are also "agnostics" who for one reason or another felt out of place in the church they were raised in, and eventually convert to another religion where they feel welcome and included. Again, these are people who never actually saw what lies were being told, and were acting purely on the social pressures.

>> ^Pprt:
>> ^vairetube:
Well, your assertion is... that a third-worlder, or member of a peripheral, exploited nation, is Non-White... The only way you could feign ignorance is if this was a printed story with no picture or names.

Racial slur? What are you on about? -Pprt


I fail to comprehend how saying someone is from the "Third World" is a racial slur. What's the nomenclature these days? Underdeveloped nation? No, sorry, that was 20 years ago. Today it's "developing nation".


Okay, I'll bite and give you the benefit of the doubt and explain to you, like a four year old, what is offensive about your comment:

From the narrator and the specifics of the video, this clip is from the USA, your assumption that this person is not originally from the USA makes a clear statement that there is somehow a difference between white people that came on the mayflower and a Mexican who can in the 1800s and has relatives still living in the united states, but bare a racial resemblance to someone who lives in say Mexico.

The major issue with your statement is that you assumed that this guy, just from his looks, is fresh off the boat or perhaps an illegal immigrant to the USA.

So let me break it down real simple for ya: you assumed that this guy is somehow related to the third-world just because of his looks. For all you know, his family may have been in the USA far longer than what I assume yours has. Therefore, there is a strong racial comment when you call someone a "third-worlder."

It's like saying "Darkie" or "Abbo" or "wetback."

You made an assumption on his background by the simple fact of what he looks like. It is racial. And if you still don't get it, well, you might want to take some touchy-feely sensitivity course designed for such situations.