Honestly, I suppose there might be no greater level of sheer stupidity than trying to defend and support a government that has gone so far as to officially label your own country as an enemy.
briskhound2 said:It’s almost as if the Germans were filming a movie about the landings in Normandy and decided to claim they were just performing a targeted cleanup of Germans from Poland, France, and Normandy, while somehow conveniently forgetting to mention Hicks and that whole messy business regarding the occupation.
I suppose this might be the simplest way to explain the situation, one that would perhaps even allow outsiders to grasp what is actually going on here.
Look, Avatar was squeezed for every last cent, mostly because they absolutely had to recoup their initial investment. I suppose they pushed it so hard that over the last few days, it was nothing but projections and nearly empty theaters.
I recall there was some discussion regarding the massive pay gaps between the villains, specifically comparing what Majors makes versus the nearly $6 million that Josh Brolin pulled in for his role as Thanos.
wearybison63 said:Maybe the new Kang could be Terrence Howard. 🤣
I suppose I had Tracy Morgan in mind as a possibility. 🙂
I just finished watching the film. It doesn't offer much in terms of originality, I suppose; it’s essentially the standard survivalist trope where characters crash-land on an unknown planet and have to fight their way back home. It feels somewhat reminiscent of After Earth, though in this instance, we are dealing with Earth in a much more ancient era. That being said, I guess the movie isn't necessarily bad if you're looking for something to pass the time.
You’ve missed the point entirely. This discussion was started because of a purely technical question, which is really the only reason the author opened this thread in the first place; specifically, does insulting someone's faith and its followers actually constitute hate speech? That is the sole issue at hand.
bluecyclist64 said:Good grief, you’re actually raising my blood pressure—to the point where I feel inclined to silence you right here and now with nothing but pure, unadulterated vitriol!
That profile picture of yours is absolutely revolting; frankly, I wouldn't let anyone looking like those creatures with red tattooed faces, yellow eyes, and horns anywhere near my children, regardless of whether they identify as non-binary atheists or whatever else!
Monsters like that ought to be cut in half. ☕ :Obi Van:
😁 Oh, I see we've graduated to throwing hands now, have we?
🙂 You all act as if you don't realize that insulting any faith, regardless of which one it may be, constitutes hate speech. And then, I suppose, attempting to justify that kind of rhetoric... well, it's just as repulsive.
I maintain my position: regardless of whatever facts might be presented, expressing hatred toward any religious organization or its followers constitutes hate speech, which is actually punishable under the law. I suppose the real question is how this would be interpreted if we were looking at a similar context involving, say, the Islamic community. In that case, the writer would likely face an immediate ban, and one might even wonder if they'd face legal repercussions.
While on vacation, a young girl and her parents are taken hostage by a group of armed strangers who demand the family make a impossible choice to prevent the apocalypse.
Directed by: M. Night Shyamalan Cast: Dave Bautista, Jonathan Groff, Rupert Grint...
No, I think you have it completely backwards. There were suspicions that the signal might be a hoax, but that’s just not possible given that it was being monitored from multiple locations simultaneously. It seems likely that the wealthy benefactor simply expedited the decoding process because he knew the government agencies would be cracking the code within days anyway. They built the machine themselves and had Drumlin (Skerritt) all set for contact, but I suppose the screenwriters felt they needed to throw in a terrorist subplot just to spice things up for the audience. It appears you’ve taken the congressional commission's conclusion at the end of the film as some sort of literal explanation.
