I respect your right to be wrong if you wish. 😉

An image generated by a computer is CGI, it doesn’t have to be Avatar to qualify.
Art is art, whether you like and respect it or not. It doesn’t have to be good to be art.
People in England are painting potatoes, inserting some painted nails, and calling it potato art. This took more effort to make than that does, but they are still art just as much as a 3 year old’s drawing or a fresco by Michelangelo is.

My kind of bullfighting.
This sport dates back to ancient Greece or earlier, as depicted in frescoes and other artwork found in Knossos, Crete and elsewhere
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull-leaping

*promote

And what you just said was relevant to anything other than your own narrow preconceived notions of what is or is not a worthwhile use of someone's time and property?

What I was doing was taking your initial argument and demonstrating the absurdity at it's core by extrapolating it's logical consequences. This is what one does when one has been taught to argue at a level beyond pre-school debating classes. I haven't just "read some Chomsky" I have spent my entire academic career studying Philosophy and linguistics/rhetoric.

Chomsky and I actually disagree on many things & frankly the fact you would choose him and not say Jacques Fresco, Jean Jacques Rousseau or Slavoj Zizek etc. with whom my beliefs have a much greater affinity suggest that you yourself have a paper thin grounding in the political and philosophical subjects you are trying to pull me up on. (and to be clear I don't fully agree with any of those people either, my political philosophy is based upon my own conclusions built up over years of study and consideration)


So lets be clear, generating $7000 of income is to you a pointless activity? (a point you have consistently refused to acknowledge as it undermines your entire argument). What about trying to entertain people? Are all attempts at comedy fruitless because they didn't make YOU laugh?

"Immature", "funny" and "necessary" are all highly subjective concepts.

Clearly YOU didn't find it funny, others (about 7 fucking million in fact!) did.

Clearly YOU thought the video creator lacked maturity, plenty of people would regard his sense of timing, context and dare I say it low level satire as indicative of a potentially very mature and cognicent individual. (not saying he is but the evidence supports either notion)

But most of all NOTHING in the universe is demonstrably necessary, not even the universe itself. The very concept of necessity or usefulness is entirely subjective in it's nature. We as humans invented it, nature has no such qualms, it simply exists and continues to do so (unless you wan't to bring God into this at which point my eyes will likely glaze over).

This did start as your observation regarding the "pointless" destruction of a phone, an observation I was suggesting had it's basis in little more than your own narrow preconceptions about what is and is not a laudable use of ones time and resources.

The point about other evils in the world was an (unsuccessful) attempt to point out the absurdity of getting your knickers in a twist about something so trivial it's almost funny. What you consider a serious problem on the global level specifically is less important than the simple fact that this dude smashing up a phone is utterly negligible by comparison to virtually anything one might care to mention. The best counter you have here far as I can see is to suggest that everything is pointless/subjective which would naturally be totally self defeating. (or to backtrack and redefine your position as one of mere distaste and aesthetic preference rather than an objective truth as you did)

Maybe your a Randist or an anarcho-capitalist or something. That's fine and while I might disagree with the premise of those positions their proponents would support my core notion just the same. i.e. getting angry and this dude smashing up his phone is by a country mile the most inconsequential and asinine point of contention in this whole discussion.


Also to be clear, I utterly reject the entire notion of the left/right wing paradigm and you're attempt to once again put my argument in a box of your own design (i.e. straw man again) is not going to work.

I'm not anti capitalist I'm anti Nepotism and Cronyism. My own ideas about how to fix the world involve both capitalist and socialist principles (along with replacing "democracy" with "meritocracy"). If you had enquired further rather than just generalising my suggestions into a straw man to support your own argument you may have had the opportunity to realise this and engage with the ideas intellectually (rather than as a reactionary).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Learn to think critically instead of dressing up your own prejudices as objective facts (and attacking the arguer instead of the argument itself).

Some might consider an inability to separate subjective preconceptions from objective facts a far greater sign of immaturity. One of the reasons children are considered immature is because they cannot tell or control where their own Ego stops and other peoples begin. (though naturally this is itself a subjective notion and should probably never be defined as an objective truth either)

I don't expect you to respond like a Harvard professor but please at least engage with the content of the argument rather than painting me into a box and trying to assassinate my character. I'm sure you're probably a reasonably intelligent person and I'm always happy to back down or take back arguments if I'm presented with a well thought out reason why I might be wrong etc.

What about that Botticelli during the early Italian Renaissance that painted those frescoes of skimpy lingerie ladies like the one in the giant clam shell??
Wonder if this guy is related to old, Sandro??

Passami Che bong, per favore??

Ok....por lo que es fresco y en español. Buena suerte con eso aquí

Not many Spanish-speakers on this site mate-Best of luck

>> ^chingalera:

Personally.....I believe they should pay the woman some royalties-
Go and watch Orson Welle's,"F for Fake" then revisit this so-called-and-so-claimed travesty of restoration and decide the intrinsic value of the woman's act.
What she did was inadvertent high-art on par with other great "masters" which to the untrained eye (or trained for that matter) are obvious brush-cleanings or Gesso-jobs.
This woman's act is for me a statement of the reality of just how full of themselves "experts" have become.
Simple fact for me is, is that the fresco has been reborn in this dynamic soup unfolding called the human experience and granny's attitude about the whole thing is not only hilarious but utterly commendable!!


Well said!

I must have seen this fresco a million times in the few weeks since this news broke, and it makes me laugh so fucking hard every single time. Seriously that is the funniest goddamn attempt-at-face ever, even without comparison to the original. With the original next to it? Oh man..

Personally.....I believe they should pay the woman some royalties-

Go and watch Orson Welle's,"F for Fake" then revisit this so-called-and-so-claimed travesty of restoration and decide the intrinsic value of the woman's act.

What she did was inadvertent high-art on par with other great "masters" which to the untrained eye (or trained for that matter) are obvious brush-cleanings or Gesso-jobs.

This woman's act is for me a statement of the reality of just how full of themselves "experts" have become.
Simple fact for me is, is that the fresco has been reborn in this dynamic soup unfolding called the human experience and granny's attitude about the whole thing is not only hilarious but utterly commendable!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/world/europe/botched-restoration-of-ecce-homo-fresco-shocks-spain.html?_r=1

Despite the comically bad end result, I find it a bit depressing when old works are destroyed. I'm just glad this wasn't especially old.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tyt, young turks, spain, church' to 'tyt, young turks, spain, church, ecce homo, fresco, santuario de la misericordia' - edited by xxovercastxx

To be perfectly honest, the painting didn't have all that much value to begin with. I know it's weird and somewhat controversial, but by screwing up a decently painted Jesus portrait, it caught our attention and now resides in the haven of the collective consciousness. If it wasn't messed up by Mrs. Bean here, we'd not give it a second glance, let alone know that this art existed in the first place.

http://www.euronews.com/2012/08/25/botched-fresco-draws-crowds-to-spanish-town/

>> ^00Scud00:

I heard in my environmental science class once that if resources were divided equally amongst everyone in the world we would all be living like people in third world countries, no wonder it's such a hard sell.
The clip of Jacque - Fresco Money is good but I don't buy the idea that currency invented bribery and corruption, it all happened before, just with horses, slaves, land, or whatever else was of value.


So, the argument I am hearing you make is that millions should be dying so that we can bask in luxury...

I heard in my environmental science class once that if resources were divided equally amongst everyone in the world we would all be living like people in third world countries, no wonder it's such a hard sell.
The clip of Jacque - Fresco Money is good but I don't buy the idea that currency invented bribery and corruption, it all happened before, just with horses, slaves, land, or whatever else was of value.

Propaganda piece for Jacque Fresco's Venus Project. Peter Joseph does a good job at recognizing problems but a lousy job at offering solutions. The Zeitgeist movement is about sacrificing individual sovereignty for the sake of a one-world vision. Joseph assumes everyone will abandon their own self-interest in the name of some global interest.

I have 2 problems with the Zeitgeist movement: 1) Morally, altruism is incompatible with freedom and individual rights. Man is not some sacrificial animal here to serve the collective group. 2) It's completely unrealistic. Everyone is always motivated by their own self interest. It's part of our DNA. Changing that is impossible.

Now what I'm really curious about is if Joseph really believes this bunk or if he's serving a greater agenda. Wonder who funded this most recent film. From a cinematic standpoint, it's pretty good.

Thanks very much for the promote!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
this is the guy from zeitgeist addendum!
awesome..
*PROMOTE!