>> ^enoch:

im with A_C.
the word "contrived" is a perfect word to use in describing the first movie.
though i would not say i hated the first, i will say it was chock full of ..meh.
the trailers are all you really needed.
they were freaking AWESOME!


I just found it enormously enjoyable action nonsense. And Liam Neeson is so fucking cool he just pulls it all off magnificently.


Things I love about Taken - SPOILERS;



The way his "17 year old" daughter runs to convince us she's 17.
He kills half the Albanian gang presence in Paris.
He gives his daughter a mobile phone without a charger.
Shooting the wife of his ex-colleague - I was just gobsmacked by that.
Neeson's running. He can't actually run so it's just as well people come at him.
Whatsherface as a megastar popstar which seems a slightly cruel bit of casting.
The fact that he NEVER reloads in the film - he just picks up new guns.

And of course that speech on the phone. It doesn't get better than that in my opinion.

>> ^enoch:

im with A_C.
the word "contrived" is a perfect word to use in describing the first movie.
though i would not say i hated the first, i will say it was chock full of ..meh.
the trailers are all you really needed.
they were freaking AWESOME!


The reason I hated it was because it was promising to deliver most of the way through then just fizzled out, such an anti-climax! Also I'd been told by so many people I'd love it, so it was just disappointing all round. And the main reason was that it left nearly every move he made unexplained, like he was some kind of mindreader. Just annoying! And made more annoying by the fact everyone loves it! They love it so fucking much they get shitty that I publicly hated it

im with A_C.
the word "contrived" is a perfect word to use in describing the first movie.
though i would not say i hated the first, i will say it was chock full of ..meh.
the trailers are all you really needed.
they were freaking AWESOME!

God I fucking hated the first one, it was the most contrived shit I have possibly ever seen and I'm really not that fussy! I'll be watching this just so I have something to rant at I expect. Liam, come back into the light dear

And to be doubly clear, there is no fundamental dichotomy between "chance" and "design". Chance needn't exist for a God or Godless universe, and "design" (as a vague concept, not specific theory) seems to exist either way too (though it could be illusory). I believe that I design things - so as an explanation for "how things are", most people are going to invoke design as a mechanism either way.

Of course there is a fundamental dichotomy between chance and design. Let's look at the definitions:

Chance

: something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause
b : the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings : luck -an outcome decided by chance-

c : the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence

1
: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive
2
a : to conceive and plan out in the mind -he designed the perfect crime- b : to have as a purpose : intend -she designed to excel in her studies- c : to devise for a specific function or end -a book designed primarily as a college textbook-

A design was deliberately caused by a mind, whereas chance just happens. Either existence as we know it was deliberately caused by a mind, or it wasn't. Whether the Universe is deterministic and things had to happen this way has no bearing, because that says nothing for the reason of the original configuration, or how it got that way. Either there is no particular reason and it just happened to be that way, or it was set into motion by an intelligence. Design is planned and chance is unplanned, and that is the dichotomy.

If you want to speak about what is arbitrary, then you have to consider that everything is equally unlikely from the standpoint of one who is unsure about everything. You may suspect there is a truth, because things appear to happen for a reason, but be unable to grasp it. This is like a black hole for the mind, and there is no escape from uncertainty.

You have to make a couple of assumptions to even begin to reason. The first is that you are real. The second is that the Universe is not inherently deceptive. The first, because you cannot reason without assuming you exist, and so assuming the contrary will only lead to absurdity. The second, because again, if you cannot trust anything then you cannot trust your own thoughts either. Therefore, you have no route to reason and again it leads to absurdity.

This isn't to say you couldn't be deceived about the Universe. It is to say that there is always some route to the truth. Therefore, the truth is something tangible and can be grasped. However, you are still in the quandary of being a subjective being with limited knowledge. There may be a route to the truth, but it requires you to be omnipotent. This is where most people stop and say, well, we just can't ever know what the truth is, but this isn't true. Even if you are not omnipotent, an omnipotent being could tell you what the truth is. That's my claim.

God is also the simplest explanation for everything, which can account for absolutely everything we see, feel, or experience, and that is precisely why some people don't like it. They don't want an ultimate answer like God because He interferes with their personal autonomy. They want to be free to imagine that it could be any number of things, so therefore they have the ultimate freedom to live however they please. To say there is any particular answer, especially a personal one, restricts their personal freedom and makes them accountable to specific outcomes.

I'm not saying this universe is in any way likely or that it should compete with your current understanding of the world. So to clarify: my question to you is "do you agree it's not absolutely impossible that is the case". If you're leaving your answer to this clarified question as "no", what possible evidence could you have to rule this situation out? What evidence or experience couldn't be falsified by a devious supernatural agent? What if they could mess with your very process of reason (and I see no reason why they couldn't - again just as hypothetical)?

Well, you've agreed with me that God could reveal Himself to someone in such a way as they could be absolutely certain about it. Such a person could justifiably consider all other outcomes to be absolutely impossible, and be absolutely certain about that. That's my claim. Can I prove that I am that person, even to myself? Not entirely, but I have faith that it is true. This is not a blind faith, it is faith based on my personal relationship with God, which is experiential. Faith is the *substance* of things hoped for, because although I do not see God with my eyes, His Spirit dwells within me.

I do believe there is another supernatural power in this world, a kingdom of darkness which is a lesser power, but powerful enough to deceive human beings. Satan does want you to believe in God; the wrong God. Satan actually doesn't care what you believe, so long as it isn't in the Lord Jesus Christ. Another reason is that I have personal experience with demons; I have been around demon possessed people, and I have spoken to them when they manifested themselves in those people. They are professional liars (actors), the like you have not imagined.

It comes back to the Universe being inherently deceptive. You can't reason that way; you have to believe there is a route to truth. Neither can Satan completely deceive you; God gives everyone the opportunity to know the truth and to break free of their slavery to sin.


>> ^jmzero

Yeah, it's an interesting concept, but the current version is next to useless.

* It takes 1 Megapixel photos
* That can only be viewed through special software
* And look pretty average at the best of times
* And only get interesting change of focus effects in fairly contrived situations

Bah and humbug.

Still, it's the first of its kind, the future of the tech is interesting.

What is so contrived about a fist bump. Everyone does that. Hell, I just fist bumped a perfect stranger today.

Also, notice, he goes off character at 2:54

>> ^ulysses1904:

For me TV ads stopped being clever and funny years ago. Now they just come across as desperate and contrived. But some actually refer to them as an "art form" and get all excited about this year's Super Bowl commercials. Count me out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRSYhLn4RCI&sns=em

For me TV ads stopped being clever and funny years ago. Now they just come across as desperate and contrived. But some actually refer to them as an "art form" and get all excited about this year's Super Bowl commercials. Count me out.

>> ^bobknight33:

Just because Ted slams OBAMA indirectly teh other day you have to bring this shit up. Typical of the left.


Uhhh... when is Ted Nugent ever not slamming Obama? That's the only thing he's capable of doing anymore.

Now I'm not one to call draft-dodgers cowards, and certainly not "the biggest coward in America." Dodging the Vietnam draft can probably just be chalked up to critical thinking, but it certainly is interesting to hear this story. As someone who threatens to kill people every day of his life for various reasons, it truly shows Nugent for what he really is: all talk and no cock. It also puts his "hunting makes me so tough" schtick in an entirely different light, namely: "I can kill a bear from really far away with a gun, but I'd never put myself in any actual danger."

I used to think Nugent was maybe just a crazy guy with some opinions that differ from what I'm used to. I always forget that a lot of famous people, radio guys especially, are simply presenting the contrived personality that gets them the most attention.

WHY THE FUCK ARE THEY PLAYING PING PONG STUPIDEST SHIT EVER

I MEAN THE WHOLE SITUATION IS A LOAD OF SHIT FUCKING HELL.

I'm all for them to do what the fuck they like in there spare time but these photo ops are so contrived and stupid , the whole situation is embarrassing to watch.

If i was one of the students id want to ask them quations not play ping pong with them i mean juses chist they might as well be playing hungry hipo.

@dystopianfuturetoday you're not helping anyone by misrepresenting the gold standard proposition and linking to a terribly disinformative article.

If you keep thinking like a central banker, you'll always hate the gold standard. Your contrived scenario just illustrates how these two things are incompatible, and you're absolutely right.

If you're in a recession, that means the economy made mistakes in a large scale. Trying to forcibly stop these mistakes from being corrected might avoid pain, but doesn't make the problem go away.

No one is advocating pain, but facing reality and letting corrections happen, whatever they are. If they're painful to some, so be it. Better than to keep doing the wrong thing.

Imagine how'd you live your life if you didn't feel physical pain. You'd have no aversion to risk, and you'd probably die without supervision.

SREDNI VASHTAR

Conradin was ten years old, and the doctor had pronounced his professional opinion that the boy would not live another five years. The doctor was silky and effete, and counted for little, but his opinion was endorsed by Mrs. De Ropp, who counted for nearly everything. Mrs. De Ropp was Conradin's cousin and guardian, and in his eyes she represented those three-fifths of the world that are necessary and disagreeable and real; the other two-fifths, in perpetual antagonism to the foregoing, were summed up in himself and his imagination. One of these days Conradin supposed he would succumb to the mastering pressure of wearisome necessary things---such as illnesses and coddling restrictions and drawn-out dulness. Without his imagination, which was rampant under the spur of loneliness, he would have succumbed long ago.

Mrs. De Ropp would never, in her honestest moments, have confessed to herself that she disliked Conradin, though she might have been dimly aware that thwarting him ``for his good'' was a duty which she did not find particularly irksome. Conradin hated her with a desperate sincerity which he was perfectly able to mask. Such few pleasures as he could contrive for himself gained an added relish from the likelihood that they would be displeasing to his guardian, and from the realm of his imagination she was locked out---an unclean thing, which should find no entrance.

In the dull, cheerless garden, overlooked by so many windows that were ready to open with a message not to do this or that, or a reminder that medicines were due, he found little attraction. The few fruit-trees that it contained were set jealously apart from his plucking, as though they were rare specimens of their kind blooming in an arid waste; it would probably have been difficult to find a market-gardener who would have offered ten shillings for their entire yearly produce. In a forgotten corner, however, almost hidden behind a dismal shrubbery, was a disused tool-shed of respectable proportions, and within its walls Conradin found a haven, something that took on the varying aspects of a playroom and a cathedral. He had peopled it with a legion of familiar phantoms, evoked partly from fragments of history and partly from his own brain, but it also boasted two inmates of flesh and blood. In one corner lived a ragged-plumaged Houdan hen, on which the boy lavished an affection that had scarcely another outlet. Further back in the gloom stood a large hutch, divided into two compartments, one of which was fronted with close iron bars. This was the abode of a large polecat-ferret, which a friendly butcher-boy had once smuggled, cage and all, into its present quarters, in exchange for a long-secreted hoard of small silver. Conradin was dreadfully afraid of the lithe, sharp-fanged beast, but it was his most treasured possession. Its very presence in the tool-shed was a secret and fearful joy, to be kept scrupulously from the knowledge of the Woman, as he privately dubbed his cousin. And one day, out of Heaven knows what material, he spun the beast a wonderful name, and from that moment it grew into a god and a religion. The Woman indulged in religion once a week at a church near by, and took Conradin with her, but to him the church service was an alien rite in the House of Rimmon. Every Thursday, in the dim and musty silence of the tool-shed, he worshipped with mystic and elaborate ceremonial before the wooden hutch where dwelt Sredni Vashtar, the great ferret. Red flowers in their season and scarlet berries in the winter-time were offered at his shrine, for he was a god who laid some special stress on the fierce impatient side of things, as opposed to the Woman's religion, which, as far as Conradin could observe, went to great lengths in the contrary direction. And on great festivals powdered nutmeg was strewn in front of his hutch, an important feature of the offering being that the nutmeg had to be stolen. These festivals were of irregular occurrence, and were chiefly appointed to celebrate some passing event. On one occasion, when Mrs. De Ropp suffered from acute toothache for three days, Conradin kept up the festival during the entire three days, and almost succeeded in persuading himself that Sredni Vashtar was personally responsible for the toothache. If the malady had lasted for another day the supply of nutmeg would have given out.

The Houdan hen was never drawn into the cult of Sredni Vashtar. Conradin had long ago settled that she was an Anabaptist. He did not pretend to have the remotest knowledge as to what an Anabaptist was, but he privately hoped that it was dashing and not very respectable. Mrs. De Ropp was the ground plan on which he based and detested all respectability.

After a while Conradin's absorption in the tool-shed began to attract the notice of his guardian. ``It is not good for him to be pottering down there in all weathers,'' she promptly decided, and at breakfast one morning she announced that the Houdan hen had been sold and taken away overnight. With her short-sighted eyes she peered at Conradin, waiting for an outbreak of rage and sorrow, which she was ready to rebuke with a flow of excellent precepts and reasoning. But Conradin said nothing: there was nothing to be said. Something perhaps in his white set face gave her a momentary qualm, for at tea that afternoon there was toast on the table, a delicacy which she usually banned on the ground that it was bad for him; also because the making of it ``gave trouble,'' a deadly offence in the middle-class feminine eye.

``I thought you liked toast,'' she exclaimed, with an injured air, observing that he did not touch it.

``Sometimes,'' said Conradin.

In the shed that evening there was an innovation in the worship of the hutch-god. Conradin had been wont to chant his praises, tonight be asked a boon.

``Do one thing for me, Sredni Vashtar.''

The thing was not specified. As Sredni Vashtar was a god he must be supposed to know. And choking back a sob as he looked at that other empty comer, Conradin went back to the world he so hated.

And every night, in the welcome darkness of his bedroom, and every evening in the dusk of the tool-shed, Conradin's bitter litany went up: ``Do one thing for me, Sredni Vashtar.''

Mrs. De Ropp noticed that the visits to the shed did not cease, and one day she made a further journey of inspection.

``What are you keeping in that locked hutch?'' she asked. ``I believe it's guinea-pigs. I'll have them all cleared away.''

Conradin shut his lips tight, but the Woman ransacked his bedroom till she found the carefully hidden key, and forthwith marched down to the shed to complete her discovery. It was a cold afternoon, and Conradin had been bidden to keep to the house. From the furthest window of the dining-room the door of the shed could just be seen beyond the corner of the shrubbery, and there Conradin stationed himself. He saw the Woman enter, and then be imagined her opening the door of the sacred hutch and peering down with her short-sighted eyes into the thick straw bed where his god lay hidden. Perhaps she would prod at the straw in her clumsy impatience. And Conradin fervently breathed his prayer for the last time. But he knew as he prayed that he did not believe. He knew that the Woman would come out presently with that pursed smile he loathed so well on her face, and that in an hour or two the gardener would carry away his wonderful god, a god no longer, but a simple brown ferret in a hutch. And he knew that the Woman would triumph always as she triumphed now, and that he would grow ever more sickly under her pestering and domineering and superior wisdom, till one day nothing would matter much more with him, and the doctor would be proved right. And in the sting and misery of his defeat, he began to chant loudly and defiantly the hymn of his threatened idol:

Sredni Vashtar went forth,
His thoughts were red thoughts and his teeth were white.
His enemies called for peace, but he brought them death.
Sredni Vashtar the Beautiful.

And then of a sudden he stopped his chanting and drew closer to the window-pane. The door of the shed still stood ajar as it had been left, and the minutes were slipping by. They were long minutes, but they slipped by nevertheless. He watched the starlings running and flying in little parties across the lawn; he counted them over and over again, with one eye always on that swinging door. A sour-faced maid came in to lay the table for tea, and still Conradin stood and waited and watched. Hope had crept by inches into his heart, and now a look of triumph began to blaze in his eyes that had only known the wistful patience of defeat. Under his breath, with a furtive exultation, he began once again the pæan of victory and devastation. And presently his eyes were rewarded: out through that doorway came a long, low, yellow-and-brown beast, with eyes a-blink at the waning daylight, and dark wet stains around the fur of jaws and throat. Conradin dropped on his knees. The great polecat-ferret made its way down to a small brook at the foot of the garden, drank for a moment, then crossed a little plank bridge and was lost to sight in the bushes. Such was the passing of Sredni Vashtar.

``Tea is ready,'' said the sour-faced maid; ``where is the mistress?'' ``She went down to the shed some time ago,'' said Conradin. And while the maid went to summon her mistress to tea, Conradin fished a toasting-fork out of the sideboard drawer and proceeded to toast himself a piece of bread. And during the toasting of it and the buttering of it with much butter and the slow enjoyment of eating it, Conradin listened to the noises and silences which fell in quick spasms beyond the dining-room door. The loud foolish screaming of the maid, the answering chorus of wondering ejaculations from the kitchen region, the scuttering footsteps and hurried embassies for outside help, and then, after a lull, the scared sobbings and the shuffling tread of those who bore a heavy burden into the house.

``Whoever will break it to the poor child? I couldn't for the life of me!'' exclaimed a shrill voice. And while they debated the matter among themselves, Conradin made himself another piece of toast.

I think of JC Penny as an ancient brand. Kind of like Marks and Spencer. Anything they can do to leverage some publicity, well good on them. Is it really a human rights issue, though, that she supports it? I think she is leveraging her sexual politics to promote a historically traditional brand. Each mention of the name she gets 100k, or something like that. Do you really think she shops there? Has anyone seen her shop there? Perhaps she gets truckloads of merch just by implying she shops there.

No hate implied, I used to love Ellen. Now she is kind of like Relish - I am not sure if I like her or not. It just seems like a poorly contrived ploy. IMHO.

@Drachen_Jager, that's quite a straw man you've bludgeoned there, not me. Extremism is relative. Free speech in the Middle Ages could be dismissed as extremist too.

I'm sorry for talking about freedom of speech yet again, but bear with me.

The reason I often make the analogy between freedom of speech and freedom of economy is that neither of them are supposed to be extreme, they both require minimal government participation, but the more the government gets in on them past this minimum threshold, the freedom itself is threatened.

None of us in the US would ever put up with government censorship like they have in China, because we know it hinders freedom of speech in general and establishes a bad precedent. If we have people using free speech to say terribly stupid things and deceiving millions with bad ideologies, it would suck, we could do something about it, raise awareness, expose and argue incessantly against those lies, etc. but we'd never blame freedom of speech itself for it, because, even though it's the freedom that allows such lies, we know that freedom of speech can take care of it. Censoring opinions would be the worst thing to do. We all believe that an environment where people have free speech is healthy, no matter what people say, because we are optimistic about freedom of speech in that, hopefully and eventually, society's opinions will evolve and lead most people closer to the truth, whatever that truth may be. That is why people debate all the time, they are seeking the truth, and it's in a free speech environment where people have the most access to information.

Truth isn't something one can just magically make everyone have access to by stating, "Every citizen has a right to the truth", and have government control the media, TV, newspapers, and the internet, to provide truth to society. I mean, it could work for a while, or on the surface, but I wouldn't trust government with providing the truth, they'd either be too incompetent or dishonest for the job. Besides, we know that no one has authority over truth, it would be too presumptuous for anyone to say they do!

Now what happens if we apply the same thinking to another kind of freedom?

If we had a free market, not everyone would be well behaved, not at all, and whenever someone would cross the line and commit fraud, break contracts or disrespect private property, we'd need government to step in. Other than that, well, it would suck, but we'd just have to let the free market take the hit, let people learn the lesson and evolve. As harsh as that seems, people would use their economic freedom to handle the problem, they would *have* to watch their own backs if they know they can't cry to government to "censor" every bad economic behavior. It wouldn't make any sense for them to blame this bad behavior on the free market itself, even though that's what liberals do in a heartbeat, and they want laws banning everything they perceive as abuses they portray as unsolvable by the economy, not understanding that these laws end up screwing over a healthy environment, making people complacent and irresponsible. These restrictions have hard to predict and usually counterproductive consequences that distort the market and lead it to misbehave even more. I am optimistic about freedom of economy in that, whatever people do, hopefully and eventually, society's business practices will evolve and lead most people to prosperity. That's why people trade all the time, they are seeking prosperity, and it's in a free market environment where people, poor or rich, have the most access to resources.

Education, healthcare, affordable houses, things an economy provides, isn't something one can just magically make everyone have access to by stating, "Every citizen has a right to free education, free healthcare and affordable houses", and have government control the economy to provide these things for society. I mean, it could work for a while, or on the surface, but I wouldn't trust government with that, they'd either be too incompetent or dishonest for the job. Besides, politicians and bureaucrats might consider themselves authorities over how to employ society's resources, but it's the same kind of presumptuouness of thinking one owns the truth: that they have better judgement than a whole lot of people coordinating their own resources in a complex economy.

People can always argue some contrived examples where socialism apparently worked, but to me it's like someone arguing in favor of censorship. Does it have any use in society? Well, it can be helpful to maintain a dictator in power. You can weed out bad ideologies or criticisms. Propaganda to help exterminate the jews. That sort of thing. I personally think it's something a supposedly evolved society like ours can do without.