I’m flagging this thread under the religion category because it feels like it's just stirring up hate and inciting conflict... I tried to make my point—and honestly, I thought my protest actually worked, maybe even earned me a warning from the mods—but somehow the post is still sitting there...
Brenda Cook4 said:Plus, you’ve got this whole condescending tone going on in that very same post:
Good grief, was that really enough to warrant a red card? I mean, wow... 🙏 👍
Alexander Hayes3, just a little heads-up: don't go stirring the pot—there's really no point... because the "religion" subforum here isn't actually meant for debating theology, it's more about keeping those kinds of debates under control... 🙂
Samuel Morgan40 said:And what, exactly, do you expect them to provide—their actual birth year? I mean, how many people have claimed to be 30, only for some story to come out later revealing they were actually just 15?
Matthew Anderson4 said:Don't see how that matters once you read what they wrote. 🤷 If they're talking nonsense, don't bother. But if someone actually knows their stuff, I couldn't care less if they're 12 or 52.
But it does matter... if we're talking about a kid, they aren't to blame—they just haven't had the chance to get an education yet, or read enough, or really learn how things work...
Amanda Murphy26 said:I spend most of my time scrolling through the news sites and the Men's Club, and I’ve noticed there are a ton of posters where you can't tell if they're even male or female just by looking at their handle. It’s kind of a pain, honestly. I’ll be halfway through some massive wall of text, totally invested, and then I realize at the very end that I was actually reading some woman ramble on. Maybe they should just put their gender right under their username or something.
Personally, I couldn't care less about that... what actually matters to me is age. I need to know if I'm debating someone who hasn't even finished middle school yet or if I'm talking to an actual adult...
I’m totally on board with what Nick was saying... honestly, the whole situation over in the religion sub is just bizarre and makes zero sense... I couldn't believe my eyes when I read (hi shady 👋) that the mods over there only go after posts that actually get reported... personally, I’ve always felt—and I’ve even mentioned this to a moderator before—that the staff should be proactively policing threads based on the rulebook, using reports just as a helpful heads-up rather than the only trigger... I mean, after getting hit with warnings myself while my debaters walked free because of that exact policy, I finally decided to start playing the game and filing reports too... 🙂 which, honestly, works like a charm—I’ll flag something and within an hour or a day, a red card pops up... 🙏 🤣 😎
Just another firebrand, right-wing party acting all self-important... honestly, I wonder if I'll ever actually see a modern conservative movement that focuses on real economic issues instead of constantly rehashing old civil war grudges and historical ghosts...
Of course, I really think conflict can be such a huge opportunity for personal growth... I mean, when our own will bumps up against someone else's, it's basically a chance to get to know ourselves better, right? It helps us build actual convictions, plus we get to learn about other people—which helps avoid those silly assumptions and misunderstandings that just clutter everything up... though, to be fair, conflict can definitely turn destructive if people just use it as a way to vent all their frustrations...
After two absolute disasters that ended in nothing but bloodshed, you really think a third attempt is going to work? I wouldn't count on it... 😁
Both the first and second versions of America actually held together while they were under strict dictatorships... but the moment they loosened the reins, everything just fell apart into total chaos...
I’d say Deep Impact is definitely the better-made movie, but Independence Day is way more fun...
Just two little gripes I had with Deep Impact: I'm just not a huge fan when there are too many kids running around in a film—it can get a bit much—and honestly, that whole subplot where the news reporter starts moping because her dad decided to remarry? It just felt out of place for this kind of story... especially since they end up choosing to go out with the comet instead...
granitefox16 said:Big mistake reading the comments here before watching, so I went in expecting a disaster... turns out it’s actually not bad. Look, it’s not the greatest thing ever, but it definitely isn't trash.
First off, let's get one thing straight: the whole Robin Hood story never really did much for me. You know, the merry men in the woods, stealing from the rich...🙄 just fairy tale stuff. I get that people wanted a classic fable since that's what the title says, but they also marketed it as something different. I tried watching it without those expectations, and honestly, I ended up liking it quite a bit. Someone claimed the music sucked, but I gotta disagree there. There are some killer moments, gorgeous scenery, and it’s not even too long. Ridley Scott was clearly trying to tell a grittier, more dignified version of the story than the previous ones.
That Errol Flynn stuff is just a snooze fest after a Sunday lunch, and I won't even touch the Kevin Costner version. The "I love you" parts didn't bother me either; it didn't feel overly sappy to me, just decent. Maybe this isn't the movie for hardcore Robin Hood fans who want black-and-white characters where everyone is purely good or evil. If you're looking for guys in tights and pointy shoes shooting arrows and partying in the forest, this isn't it. But that’s exactly why I liked it. There are funny scenes, solid music, great landscapes, and the characters seem totally fine to me.
LIGHT SPOILERS:
The only thing that annoyed me was that nonsense with Marianne charging into the final battle, and those kids from the forest were completely pointless, especially that charge at the end.
It’s not the worst movie ever made, and it’s not even the worst thing I’ve seen in the last year. That spot is still firmly held by that 2012 piece of crap.🤦
My advice? Just watch it.
By the way, someone compared Marianne in this flick to Arwen, and I just don't see the connection at all.🤷
Maybe it's because Cate Blanchett is playing her own grandmother in Lord of the Rings?... I don't know, just a thought... 😁
So, just a quick little edit here—I realized I might have been a bit fuzzy on the family tree! Basically, Galadriel is actually Arwen's grandmother... see, Galadriel had a daughter named Celebrian, and then Celebrian and Elrond had Arwen... but apparently, back in the day, Celebrian was captured and mistreated by Orcs, and once she was finally rescued, she decided to head out to the Elven lands in the West... which explains why little Arwen doesn't have a mom around in Lord of the Rings... just a bit of tragic backstory, I guess... 😬
stormysailor7 said:I think they’d absolutely crush the Republican Party, especially if they had someone like Kalmetta on board...
I wouldn't hold my breath...
Eric Adams is a spent force at this point, Donald Trump is only pulling about 2% in certain polls, and really, the only one with any real traction out in the Midwest is the boss...
The worst part—I can actually see them pulling in a ton of votes. 😢
We need the Republican Party, but definitely not this ridiculous crowd—not some convicted war criminal, not some shady businessman, and certainly not a populist like Eric Adams.
this whole KGB-style coalition is just the perfect example of how much of a swamp the American political scene has become—and what kind of strange creatures have managed to grow in it... all thanks to the Republican Party...
Just one little thing that isn't exactly historically accurate... the movie kind of assumes the King, the Prince, and all those nobles are strictly English and view England as their only home... back then, Richard and John actually held massive territories in France—they lived there and spoke French too... it wasn't until John lost those French lands that he became the first king to actually settle in England, though he certainly wasn't the first one to start speaking English...
Jeffrey Martinez2 said:Give me the details!!! What specifically sucked??? Break it down for me...😕
To put it simply—it honestly feels like everyone involved, from the director and the screenwriters all the way down to the cast, just got handed a memo by some studio exec saying, "Hey, go make a Robin Hood," and they just went through the motions... like they were doing it under duress or something...
Bio, video, sat in front of the screen, and honestly... just disappointed. It’s been a long time since I’ve sat through something this bad in a theater... compared to this, "King Arthur" and "The Last Legion" look like absolute masterpieces... I still can't wrap my head around how Ridley Scott and Crowe managed to churn out such a mess... 👎
The movie isn't bad—honestly, it feels like a pretty natural follow-up to a really solid first installment... despite all those rumors floating around, I don't really get the Rocky comparisons... the dialogue hits the mark and the plot holds up quite well until that "big twist" near the end, where things start to dip a little bit... I wasn't a huge fan of how the lead character handles his physical injury, though...
All in all, I'm actually feeling pretty good about it...
I don't mean Jews in general, but rather the viewpoint of one specific subset—the Mexican Jews... they tend to be quite radical, always standing right alongside Mexicans, especially when things involve Americans...
A normal, functioning country would actually step up and push back against this kind of shameless smear campaign... but I guess that’s also exactly why nobody’s going to lift a finger... ☕