thanks very much!

In reply to your comment:
“*dead
Here's a replacement.
Enjoy!”

No worries, however, originally I posted it under "japanese archers" because I didn't recognize that the race of the archers differed from that of the commentators.

You're right... had I searched for "korean archer", I would have had a hit. However, I fixed the tags after the original post.

In reply to your comment:
“I searched under "Korean Archer" and it came up on top. I think searching in singular will make it easier for future searches.

In any case, I guess I should probably *discard.
Sorry, omnithrope. I'm sure you'll find a better one easily enough. ”

Hi i have never seen anny evidence that juses actualy exsisted historicly there are refrences to a cuple of men named juses at the time the bible sead but non of them are historicly backed as beaing juses of the bible just men simply named juses that were notable at that time. aditoinaly around bible times there are manny people claiming to be sons of gods ore simular. a good podcast to listen to on the subject is (infidel guy kenneth Humphreys - jesus Never Existed)

My point is that no, it is NOT ok to make a comment like "I disapprove of homosexuality because I consider it to be an unnatural relationship" anymore than it would be acceptable to say "I disapprove of women's suffrage because women are flighty and don't know anything about politics" or "i disapprove of desegregation because black students aren't as smart as whites"

Now, this is not to say you "must not say these things." Say what you think. But you're wrong, and don't be surprised when people get upset and want to argue you about it.

In reply to your comment:
“I think you're missing the point of my post. I was using homosexuality as an example of the difference between comments that stem debate, and comments that are personal attacks. A comment like "I disapprove of homosexuality because I consider it to be an unnatural relationship" is an example of a comment that could open up an interesting yet civil debate. (A perfect example is what you've done by sending this post to me.) However, the comment about homosexuals being AIDS-ridden and immoral is, as I pointed out, an impolite attack on someone who may be gay. Not all homosexuals have AIDS, and morality is subjective. Therefore a statement like that is an opinionated attack, which does not belong on a website such as Videosift. (Maybe Youtube, cause we all know the quality of the posts there . . .)

And so reverting this example back to religion, one can voice their thoughts on religion without saying anything insulting about the people involved. It's important to realize that in the end, even if you never come to agreement about the debate, you'll maintain mutual respect.

I strongly disagree with you on the subject of homosexuality. Scientists have observed many species of animals engaging in homosexual behavior. There is mounting evidence that a percentage of homosexuality can be adaptive for a species as a whole.

In light of these and other discoveries, it would seem that homosexuality is not a "choice" that a person makes. To condemn, or disdain, or otherwise disparage or discriminate against a person because of their sexual orientation, is just like discriminating against a person because of the colour of their skin, or the place where they were born.

Somebody can choose to become Muslim, Christian or Buddhist. But you can not choose to be a man or a woman, black or white, asian or african. We are born this way.

It is my opinion that a person's choice to become a member of a mind-controlling cult is probably not a good one. I think you would agree. We would also agree that a person who chooses to begin practicing a 13-century Aztec religion which practices human sacrifice is also misled. It is "okay" to be "prejudiced" against human sacrifice. Indeed, animal sacrifice is also not generally observed in modern day. But does not your own bible give directions for sacrificing animals to your own god?

My point is, religion is a choice, and therefore open for debate. If you make a bad choice, I'm going to tell you- "don't kill your daughter, that god doesn't exist!"

But when people start to say that black people are lazy, that women are emotional, that homosexuals are immoral.... that is too much.

In reply to your comment:
“I think that some people aren't understanding what the issue is here. Those who are offended by such comments as the one in the video are not offended because the people making those comments are against religion. They are offended because the comments are attacks against them.

It's fine to say "I'm not to crazy about [religion] because it's just a load of supernatural mythology," or something like that. And there's nothing wrong with even saying you despise a certain religion, though from there you have to remember that those who believe in it believe in it strongly, so they'll have a strong reaction.

What's not all right is saying something akin to "Those who believe in this religion are idiots," or something along those lines. This is a personal attack on those people, and is really unsubstantiated.

Taking it to a different level, someone may not approve of homosexuality. They may say something along the lines of "I don't approve because I consider it a sin," or "I consider it to be an unnatural relationship," (though the second may be stretching it in terms of civility, depending on the company). But saying something like "Homosexuals are all AIDS-ridden and immoral," is an attack on the people, which is never right.

What should be done is not to censor anyone for saying they may have different views on any subject, but to hold them accountable for what they say. If their comments are hateful or derogatory, then do they really have place on a site that proclaims itself to be above such things?”

Thanks a bunch, is there anyway to do that stuff on my own? Or am I just a newbie?

In reply to your comment:
“Here, I'll help out:
*long”

Thanks for the heads up. It is not the first trailer to die on me, unfortunately.

In reply to your comment:
“It died. Not sure why, as it's just a trailer. You'd think that distributors would want a large number of people to be watching their advertisements . . .”

In reply to your comment:
“I despise Scientology as much as the next guy, but I'd like to point out that most of the negative stuff about it comes from the behavior and actions of the Church of Scientology. They're the ones who use deceptive and arrogant tactics. But as a religion, hey, we're all free to believe what we wish.

It's easy to object to Mormonism as well, but note that a lot of the bad stuff about Mormonism (polygamy, killing people) was dictated by the church itself, which has fortunately toned things down in recent years.

And one could do the same towards the Muslim religion, but it's really the more extremist sects of the Nation of Islam that believe that they must go out and kill all the infidels.

And don't think that atheists are blameless. They've done their share of persecuting those with religious beliefs.

All in all, it's not necessarily the entire religion itself that does the "bad" stuff, but rather the extremist parts of it. So don't be too quick to condemn someone for their beliefs when their actions and choices may not be so negative after all.”

I'm sorry Sylvester_Ink, but I'm a former Mormon (AKA LDS)and nowhere in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints there are no random acts of murder or violence committed in the name of the religion. There are many random acts of murder and martyrdom against the religion though (if you have ever heard of Joseph Smith you will know what I'm talking about).

And once the State (or maybe country) outlawed polygamy the church also outlawed it. Also people commonly mistaken the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints as the same religion (RLDS, which does practice polygamy illegally, the name Warren Jeffs comes to mind (fucking psycho)), but they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, and the RLDS church no longer even recognizes the Book or Mormon anymore, and the two religions are not even associated at all, EVER. Please do your homework before you bash any religion again.

As far as Scientology goes, they are fucked up, and i have done my homework on them. Just remember the last lines of this video: http://www.videosift.com/video/Scientology-Orientation-Video-watch-it-while-you-can "...or you can jump off a bridge or blow your brains out." What kind of religion would tell people to do that or join their church!? It's fucking ridiculous! Scientology is more like a Tax Exempt corporation because you have to buy the e-meter readings and buy the books to "move up" in their church.

Hmmm... your avatar is a bunny wabbit with a knife... methinks perhaps you belong at the Horrorshow?

http://horrorshow.videosift.com/

hey. I realize you just left this quick comment not expecting a reply, but... I'm procrastinating, so...

... only the motorcycle and its driver from the point that they're hit by the door on are extremely likely to be cg models. its all of 2 seconds of animation. I stopped short in my comment of theorizing that the stuntmen DID just fall over in the ditch in the film take, and it wasn't dramatic enough for the director. So, as it was a big budget movie, they tried to spice it up, and now it looks very unreal to me.

... actually, it looks like the backseat gunman/guy in the ditch in the end is real throughout, and him getting from the ditch was the only real action before they cg'd a wild ride for the driver (instead of just falling over). I can't see how this could possibly be done with some launching stunt bike, but what do I know.

cheers!

In reply to your comment:
“Man, nowadays everyone assumes that everything is cg. The dirtbike certainly doesn't look like cg to me, it just looks rigged so that it would fly around like that. People should realize that cg is expensive stuff, especially if you're going to make it detailed enough to look real. (And the motorcycle in this scene certainly looks detailed enough.) Why waste good budget money on cg when you can rig the cycle to do its thing for much less. I mean, effects experts have been doing it for years and we've all scene stuff a LOT more radical than this that wasn't cg. (Exploding helicopters, crashing trains, demolished buildings.) Granted those things are a bit more expensive, but if they can be done in a convincing manner without cg, then a simple motorcycle flip would be no issue.

The ping-pong ball is a bit more likely, as that trick doesn't look really easy to do, and the cg wouldn't be all that expensive, but again, why even spend money at all? It's just as likely that the actors were able to do it with another effects method, or perhaps even naturally.

Of course, I could be wrong about this, as I don't know the details behind the making of the movie . . .”

Always happy to have new members, head over to Ball-Flexin' and accept your invite. Welcome to the show!