>> ^jmzero:

I'm torn on this.
I wasn't a big fan of Kill Bill - especially the second part. Certainly some great scenes, but too much winking self-awareness. Some of this trailer (especially the beginning) has this same kind of lazy looking self parody. I see what they're getting at, but I'm not a fan.
But it also has some absolute top shelf action talent, and every reason to believe it will have amazing action scenes. Oh, and Michelle Yeoh apparently.
So, yeah, this'll be awesome.


Just watched it. It's clear they cut the trailer to appeal to mass market America who loved the fact that the latest Karate Kid was about Kung Fu. It's not at all humorous as the trailer makes it out to be. They obviously mentioned Kill Bill among others for the same reason, but in fact the only "people who brought you..." they're really referring to is Yuen Woo Ping.

It is a bit fractured for it to be a perfect flick, but it was highly enjoyable to me. I recommend it especially to folks who know and appreciate the genre.

Yeah, if it weren't for the slightly crazy things, he'd be as ass kicking as ron paul.

The next time some wussy tells you that "Violence is never the answer", show them this video.

Sometimes, a kid needs to get his ass kicked to learn a valuable lesson.

Casey was acting in self-defense, and would have gotten off in any reasonable court of law. Why should we hold our kids to different standards (that they can *never* fight, even in self-defense) that we don't hold to adults?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Skyrim
>> ^shuac:
And the leveling system will likely be the same as before. Mods will just as likely present a workaround.
They've already described the new leveling system. It will be skill-based but not class-limited. Leveling any skill contributes to your level.
Level-scaling is in effect on the main quest and can be implemented on certain side-quests. Generally, monsters and such are not supposed to be level-scaled. Level-scaled quests are supposed to "lock-in" when you start them. If you're getting your ass kicked, you can run away and level some more and return without everything in the dungeon having leveled-up with you.
Well shut my mouth!

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Skyrim

>> ^shuac:
And the leveling system will likely be the same as before. Mods will just as likely present a workaround.

They've already described the new leveling system. It will be skill-based but not class-limited. Leveling any skill contributes to your level.

Level-scaling is in effect on the main quest and can be implemented on certain side-quests. Generally, monsters and such are not supposed to be level-scaled. Level-scaled quests are supposed to "lock-in" when you start them. If you're getting your ass kicked, you can run away and level some more and return without everything in the dungeon having leveled-up with you.

Teachers of rebellion get their asses kicked--maybe even crucified.

Happy 5th VS. Thanks to the staff for having the guts to put this together and stick with it, and thanks to all the ass-kicking members who are so great at scouring the net for worthwhile content.

Hey, I understand. Trying to defend the bible is a bit like being a one legged man in an ass kicking contest, I have the high ground so to speak. But there's no need to be uncivil, I had a perfectly reasonable request which led you to tuck your tail between your legs and sound the retreat. I know it seems that logic and rational argument are unfair weapons in debates on theology because you have no ammunition of your own. Come back when you are ready to discuss things rather than pointing to something someone else made that doesn't even support your side.

>> ^Toshley:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Tell me the timecode where he provides the brilliant argument that makes your point then. I don't have time to waste on stupid Christian videos that seem to be only tangentially related to the argument at hand and don't even appear to support your side.
>> ^Toshley:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Umm, he says repeatedly in the video that morality is subjective. I got as far as the point where he said he wasn't going to talk about using the bible as on objective standard. The rest just seems to be excusing all the wicked behaviour in the Old Testament on a variety of thin pretexts. I'm not going to waste my time with the whole thing. He certainly seems to be backing my side of this argument.
See this page for moral problems in the New Testament. Obviously even the new/old testament argument doesn't really hold much water. Humans make their own morality, 2,000 year old books are out of date and any idiot who thinks a modern person can safely determine moral issues using no human judgement, only the Bible as a source is utterly hopeless.
>> ^Toshley:
At this point, I am going to go ahead and assume you're a troll.
If you're honestly confused, I suggest you watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PrZeqhsdqE


There's no point in continuing this conversation.
I am looking for intellectual and rational discussion here. You've admitted that you didn't watch the entire video and then expect me to follow some link you provided?
Feel free to continue calling me an idiot, I personally don't care.


You don't have time to waste on a stupid Christian video but yet you had time to watch this one, comment on it, and defend your lack of belief militantly.
Congratulations on time management.
Please stop replying to my messages unless you want to talk in a civil manner. The video was directly related to the discussion at hand, you would have known that if you had watched the entire video.
Of course it "Do not even appear" to support my side because the video touches on multiple subjects.
Troll somewhere else. I am done.

thanks, sir!
and i won't tell. i don't want issy to kick my ass either.

this is my new jam. we listen to it while we fuck shit up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xp-Fk7L8uw
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Don't tell Issy, but I think I'm falling in love. Don't tell thinker either. I don't want my ass kicked. You are one righteous human being.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
i pretty much exclusively let only nerds into my vagina. but i've never wanted to put so many nerds in my vagina at once. i want to put anonymous in my vagina. i want them to live there and take it all down from inside me. then i want to give birth to the revolt. but they won't have to wear those stupid guy fawkes masks when they come out, they will wear their beautiful beautiful faces.

Don't tell Issy, but I think I'm falling in love. Don't tell thinker either. I don't want my ass kicked. You are one righteous human being.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
i pretty much exclusively let only nerds into my vagina. but i've never wanted to put so many nerds in my vagina at once. i want to put anonymous in my vagina. i want them to live there and take it all down from inside me. then i want to give birth to the revolt. but they won't have to wear those stupid guy fawkes masks when they come out, they will wear their beautiful beautiful faces.

@Crunchy @Hive13 @spoco2 @Gallowflak @Sagemind @calvados @Reefie @Pantalones

I'm with reefie and pantalones on this one, yes I got my mouth washed out with soap but I also had a pair of boxing gloves thrown at me and strapped on while I got my ass kicked "so you dont hurt me." I'm not saying that everything here is exactly right; but the punishment was mild at best.

I don't particularly think that she's ridiculing him, the hot sauce and cold shower seem like alternative corporal punishments that have been established as consequences for the behavior. It seems like she's simply following through with said consequences.

Idk about everyone else, but i'll take hot sauce (something actually edible) over Dial soap and a cold shower (something uncomfortable but not really outright painful) over a belt or a punch to the face any day. So to be clear, to those calling this "abuse" I think you can find much much better examples of abuse that fit the definition of that word more precisely than what we have here.

Just for saying's sake, lets go with the best definition from freeonlinedictionary "To hurt or injure by maltreatment" or to take it a step further, lets look at the actual documents that define abuse in US courts: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/whatiscan.cfm

I had a hard time finding anything on the childwelfare site that fit what happened here and defined what happened as abuse. On the other hand, when the site says under emotional abuse: "Permitted other maladaptive behavior—encouragement or permitting of other maladaptive behavior (e.g., chronic delinquency, severe assault) under circumstances where the parent or caregiver has reason to be aware of the existence and seriousness of the problem but does not intervene."

I would argue that if she did nothing in this situation that she could be complicit in committing emotional abuse (as defined by the child welfare site) but if the kid acted out at school and she did nothing I sincerely doubt anyone would be "not watching" for fear of what you might see (a kid not being receiving a consequence for bad behavior and lying). The punishments, although a bit unusual, are not anything to write home about. Those of you who disagree, I encourage you to prove me wrong with some legal citation (you know, instead of just saying "fuck you" ala Galoflak).

The rat handed them an epic ass-kick!

I would like to see a movie, where humanity gets its ass kicked for good and no one, not even the HUAAHH mighty US army can do damn thing. Learning humility the hard way! Get a message to the people for christmas! But then, some smart scientist plants a virus ... erm, wait ... is this not the Hollywood producers meeting?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think it's more of a philosophical issue than one of semantics, though there's definitely a semantic component.
...
There are probably many logical conclusions that you could take my premise to, but I do not take it to the particular one you insist is required.

That's why I'm saying the issue I'm raising is largely a semantic quibble. I don't think you mean what you're saying. I think you mean to say something close to, but not exactly what you said.

I think you meant to say this:

A totalitarian system has to break the will of every person trapped inside it before freedom can truly be eradicated. Even then, it seems that eventually it springs up anew in people, sometimes it just takes a little longer than others.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
To say one has freedom of speech doesn't mean there are no repercussions for speaking freely. If I go downtown and start screaming racial obscenities, I'm probably going to get my ass kicked (and rightfully so). That doesn't change the fact that I can do that if I want to.

True, but the threat of those repercussions constrain you from acting as you would like to. To draw on the Babylon 5 clip above, they told him to submit, or die. He was already locked in a cell. He'd already been tortured. He'd been beaten. Starved. Deprived of sleep. Poisoned. They even threatened his father's life. The lives of everyone he'd ever loved. In the end, they threatened his own life. They even staged a mock execution, and only at the last second...they just started over at the beginning, as if nothing had happened.

Had he submitted, would you consider his freedom stolen, or surrendered willingly?

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Understand that, in this context, I'm talking about freedom as in our 'self-evident', 'inalienable rights'. Clearly, being imprisoned takes away your physical freedom, but I draw a distinction between that and what I'm talking about. I realize many (most?) people do not.

Yeah, but are they really self-evident? Are they really inalienable? Those were beautiful words, and they were a massively revolutionary sentiment at the time, but it wasn't really a statement of fact about how the universe works. It was a declaration of how things should be, not how they are.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Or maybe they do. How many people here on VideoSplif are waiting for pot to be legalized so they can have a joint? And how many people light up whenever they feel like it? Do you believe the government has given us the right to smoke pot, or is it a right we've taken?

Since pot is still illegal, it's clearly not a right government has given us. It's also clearly not a right -- I can't demand that I can smoke pot, anywhere, anytime, regardless of how anyone else feels about it. I also can't expect pot to be provided to me, whether I can pay for it or not.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I disagree that liberals are "pro-freedom" and conservatives are "anti-freedom"; they simply have different definitions of freedom or, at least, different priorities.

I agree with that, and I was phrasing things the way I was more to illustrate those different ideas about freedom than because I'm enslaved by some black and white view of the world.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
What freedoms do you believe have been given to us by government?


For one, property rights only exist as function of government. Otherwise, "property" would just be whatever you could stop other people from taking away from you.

Most "rights" follow a similar pattern, e.g. right of habeas corpus, right to vote, right to a redress of grievances, etc.

As for "freedoms", you are free to change jobs (or quit entirely) because of government. You are free to demand, and expect pay for your labor. You are free to walk around unarmed thanks to the expectation of law enforcement. No one is allowed to force you to do anything, and if they try, the government is expected to stop them.

Government makes it so there is a threat of violence hanging over the head of those who refuse to respect individual freedom, and that's counterbalanced by a strong societal value that if the government stops respect individual freedom, that we have a duty to remove that government.

As I see it, there seem to be powerful people who are hell bent on eroding the laws and traditions that make up that equilibrium. (And yes, I think they largely wield "conservatives" as a blunt instrument to that end, using them like an auto-immune disease to kill government, so they can go back to the good old days of monarchy)

People on the right seem to act like rights and freedom are something they have that can't be taken away. I think that's insane. Without government, your "freedom" will be taken from you before you can say "caveat emptor." Freedom can and has been stolen, all throughout history. If anything we live in an unprecedented golden age of man where freedom is for most intents and purposes is in the hands of the individual, largely because we turned our governments into democratic collective entities charged with creating a society where individuals can expect to be free.

@NetRunner

I think it's more of a philosophical issue than one of semantics, though there's definitely a semantic component.

Right off the bat, I think we both agree that it's far preferable that the government is supportive of your rights and freedoms.

There are probably many logical conclusions that you could take my premise to, but I do not take it to the particular one you insist is required.

To say one has freedom of speech doesn't mean there are no repercussions for speaking freely. If I go downtown and start screaming racial obscenities, I'm probably going to get my ass kicked (and rightfully so). That doesn't change the fact that I can do that if I want to.

On the flip side, if I attend a protest against the government's use of torture, I may well get my ass kicked, tasered and arrested. That still doesn't change the fact that I can say what I want.

We all have degrees of freedom of speech, limited primarily by what we feel comfortable with and what we think is appropriate. Those we impose upon ourselves are the only real limits.

Understand that, in this context, I'm talking about freedom as in our 'self-evident', 'inalienable rights'. Clearly, being imprisoned takes away your physical freedom, but I draw a distinction between that and what I'm talking about. I realize many (most?) people do not.

Or maybe they do. How many people here on VideoSplif are waiting for pot to be legalized so they can have a joint? And how many people light up whenever they feel like it? Do you believe the government has given us the right to smoke pot, or is it a right we've taken?

I disagree that liberals are "pro-freedom" and conservatives are "anti-freedom"; they simply have different definitions of freedom or, at least, different priorities. I disagree, to some extent, with both of them.

Maybe I've struck on a good way to make my point... What freedoms do you believe have been given to us by government?