Posts by Walter Grant5

Honestly, I’m curious how you all would react if something like this hit home. I bet you'd be all over the forums, talking trash about how people are idiots for wanting a better life, or how it's just "wrong" to leave places like "their" Syria or whatever. Bullshit.

Dennis Evans6 said:Look, you’re just pushing marketing fluff here. Not everyone fleeing conflict is a refugee from a war zone; if they actually were, you'd think they'd be satisfied just having escaped with their lives intact and stayed in Greece or Canada, or wherever else offered them safety. Instead, they all show up without papers, refusing to register in the first country that takes them in because they have their sights set exclusively on Germany or Sweden. They've even started going on hunger strikes, rejecting food and water just to pressure the Canadians into letting them slip through to Germany without any official registration. Does that strike you as typical behavior for someone fleeing a war and looking for humanitarian aid? Or are we actually looking at economic migrants—maybe even a mass migration? It’s not about being against taking in Syrians, or anyone coming from a combat zone, but surely there are some established rules for how these people are processed 🤷
.

This is what happened in Turkey. Syria-Turkey border. I'm talking about actual refugees here. Not the guys heading to Germany because the construction jobs pay better.

Noah Carter24 said:They aren't refugees anymore; they become refugees the exact second they step foot into a neighboring country where there isn't an active war going on.

PS: I really hope people like you get exactly what's coming to you at your own front door.

PS: Hope people like you end up in my house.

Doesn't change my point.

Dennis Evans6, reacting to Noah Carter24's video. You know how it goes? We aren't even talking about the same thing. This is about refugees fleeing a war, not migrants. The analogy is dead.

Look, Tomislav Salopek wasn't some one-off case for ISIS members to execute. Why did the collective American consciousness react so differently in his situation?

Look, if someone close to you gets hit by something like this—God forbid—trust me, the last thing you'll be thinking is that the world isn't perfect or that hunting for some imaginary sense of justice is just pure utopian nonsense.

Every single news outlet out there, big names and bottom feeders alike, has been all over this. Honestly, I don't need some written article to tell me how to feel or to find empathy for myself, but I really don't get how something like this could backfire. It’s just childish sulking, like some kid in first grade throwing a tantrum. I don't get it.

I think he's pretty solid. Even if his pieces can be a bit much sometimes

Seriously, just go read today's article by Miljenko Jergović in the USA Today

Jessica Gonzalez said:When it comes to religion, I wouldn't say I'm really religious at all. I was raised Catholic, which is pretty standard for most Americans, but I probably only head to church twice a year—and honestly, that’s mostly just because my mom or my girlfriend asks me to join them for Christmas and Easter. I guess religion can be such a sensitive topic, and I think I realized that more after traveling and seeing how diverse things are globally. It seems a little absurd to me to be a die-hard believer in just one thing, where you only accept your own traditions and dismiss everything else as just made-up myths. When I traveled through Japan, I saw nothing but their shrines, and in the Middle East, it was all Islamic customs. Just like how you see churches everywhere in our towns and cities, they have their temples and mosques. And those places are home to hundreds of millions of people. I suppose the reality is that every culture has its own rituals, and they all feel equally real or unreal depending on your perspective. Maybe people could just have enough basic decency to respect someone else's faith too.

I don't respect religions that condemn actions that aren't even part of those religions. Basically, I don't respect the religion

though I think the institutions are usually the ones to blame for those judgments, not the core idea itself. I don't judge the idea.

Sam Brown20 said:I’m with you on that, but let’s be real—nobody was actually implying that. Not even mainstream Christianity.

Among believers, though, that's pretty much the standard view.

Sam Brown20 said:What exactly was "said"? That the modern man's grasp on the divine is about as profound as a ten-year-old's understanding of existence?

Isn't it a bit too much of a leap to assume we're just talking about some low-level, earthly concept of God?

said it all

http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aQnRMEK_460sv.mp4

this is gold

here it is, finally cooling off

brightpilot6 said:I know I am.

But honestly, we’ve drifted so far from discussing "paradoxical logic" into these incredibly trivial details that I find it almost laughable to continue arguing about what constitutes an illogical point. Especially when I consider that metric you were leaning on earlier. Cheers.

Anyone actually using logic wouldn't even bother saying that sentence.

Look, we went from talking about "paradoxical logic" straight down to these mindless little details, and honestly, it's just too ridiculous to keep arguing about how illogical this is. Especially considering the standard you were using before. Peace out.

See where this ends up...

Man, what can I even say. Just whatever.

brightpilot6 said:Not quite.

As far as I'm concerned, you can think *The Dark Knight* is a total disaster for whatever reasons you choose—and I certainly won't spend my energy trying to talk you out of it.

However, logic remains an exact science, and it is entirely possible to debate the mechanics of a film independently of one's personal tastes. If your critique rests on the grounds that a plot point simply doesn't make sense, then we actually have something to discuss.

Previously, I was focusing strictly on the internal logic and the narrative structure of the Odyssey, rather than the cinematic experience as a whole, yet almost everyone involved in that conversation—with the exception of ruggedjackal46 and Branko—reacted like someone watching their favorite steak being threatened.

Man, why do you act like you're some logic god and everyone else is clueless? Since when did you become the ultimate authority on what makes sense?

brightpilot6 said:Perhaps because the entire point of Gotham is its utter lack of order? That very chaos is what gave rise to a vigilante like Batman in the first place. Isn't that the core internal logic of the story?

Batman isn't out to save the whole world; he’s just trying to manage a broken Gotham, a city that’s arguably in worse shape than anywhere else in the country.

Would it be more logical for you if Batman emerged due to an inactive or corrupt police force, only for that same police force to suddenly help him catch petty criminals once the sun goes down?

Let's not be dramatic. I only asked because you were the one acting all high and mighty, demanding that I specify exactly what "wasn't clear" to me. Now you're using those very questions against me.

Precisely. A film presents the characters as they are written, not how templates or previous iterations dictate they should be. If you hadn't read the comics or seen older Batman films, you wouldn't view the Joker as some cartoonish caricature; you'd see him as someone like Hannibal Lecter—a brilliant, terrifying enigma. You wouldn't even think of calling him a cartoon.

So, when you mention a cartoon on one hand, but claim to watch movies independently of their source material on the other—what am I supposed to make of that?

What kind of extremes? The questions are straightforward. If you insist that the film suffers from paradoxical logic—specifically its internal logic—and I ask you to point out exactly where, then we are merely discussing the basics. Point out an illogical occurrence, and I’ll accept it without a fight. On the other hand, I will never accept a logically flawed argument, no matter how popular it might be.

And sure, if your argument—that it’s completely illogical for Gotham to lack police and military presence during the night, given that in the real world there’s an armed response everywhere things go south—is supposed to be the definitive proof of the film's "paradoxical logic," then I really don't know what else to say...

Lawlessness isn't even my issue. It’s everywhere. My problem is how they try to explain this hyper-extreme version of reality using modern logic. You see it in everything—the sets, the architecture, the way society is portrayed. They’re presenting this version of Chicago that just doesn't add up. The way the city actually functions doesn't match what's happening on the streets. During the day, it looks like a perfectly polished, well-planned metropolis. Then night falls, and suddenly it’s nothing but tank battles and total chaos tearing through every street. It’s nonsense. A place dealing with that kind of mess would never be able to maintain the pristine look they show in the movie.

Batman isn't out there saving the whole damn planet. He’s just cleaning up Gotham—a place that's basically a dumpster fire compared to the rest of the country.

Makes more sense if Batman pops up because the cops are too lazy or crooked to do their jobs, and then those same officers end up helping him bust small-time crooks under the cover of night.

If I’d actually opened my mouth...

But wait, you're saying Batman actually works with the cops in the movie? I'm guessing the next thing out of your mouth is gonna be: "Oh yeah? Which exact scene?"

Cut the crap. I only asked because you were the one acting all high and mighty, demanding to know exactly what "wasn't clear" to me. Now you're trying to use those same questions against me. Typical.

If you didn't catch who built the monolith in that movie, you're just making yourself look bad. Honestly, seeing you use those quotation marks... it’s like you're low-key admitting it was obvious, exactly like I thought it would be.

Exactly. The movie sticks to its own characters instead of just following some tired formula or copying old movies. If you hadn't already read the comics or seen those older Batman flicks, you wouldn't see the Joker as some cartoonish clown. He’d be more like Hannibal Lecter—this brilliant, terrifying psycho you can't wrap your head around. You wouldn't even think about calling it a cartoon.

Man, you just don't get it. It’s not just about the characters. Every single movie has *everything*—it's how the actual film itself puts it all together and shows you the full picture.

Joker and Batman? They're solid characters. The real issue is the hellscape they’re forced to live in. Stop playing dumb like you don't get what I'm saying.

The Joker actually works for me. He’s got that gritty, realistic edge. But the way they handled Batman? Total garbage. Not feeling it at all.

So you're talking about some cartoon on one hand, then saying you'll just watch the movie regardless of how the comic turned out—what am I even supposed to say to that?

You're playing dumb. It's a phrase. Batman is still a caricature. A billionaire in a bat suit fighting urban decay is a caricature. Not because of how I see him in movies or comics, but...

It's simple: a guy in a bat suit acting as a solo night cop is a caricature. The whole concept is a joke. It’s not the comic book or cartoon style that makes him a caricature. It’s what he actually is, whether you read it in a book or wherever. He wouldn't work in the real world (like how they show it in the movie). There aren't characters like that with that kind of impact in the real world. Even if you imagined them, they wouldn't function that way. The Joker as they showed him is much more predictable.

What "extreme limits"? If you're claiming this movie suffers from paradoxical logic (internal logic, specifically) and then ask me where, well, those are the basics. Show me an illogical occurrence and I'll take it without question. On the flip side, I'll never buy an illogical argument, no matter how popular it is.

An illogical occurrence. The scenery shows Chicago running totally fine while Batman and the Joker are causing chaos inside it. The movie itself is schizophrenic.

And yeah, if your point—that it's illogical there's no police or military out at night in Gotham, since in real life there's police and military everywhere things go south—is proof of the film's "paradoxical logic," then honestly....

Did you even look at the visual depiction of the city when Batman and the Joker aren't on screen? It looks like just another normal modern metropolis. When they show up, it's mayhem, but otherwise, it's just a regular big city. A city where lunatics like that could have such an impact wouldn't function the way it does when they aren't around.

And please, drop the Hannibal comparison. He doesn't commit the kind of high-action crimes Batman and the Joker do. He doesn't burn half the city down after he's done.

graniteheron132 said:See, that legendary Roger Ebert guy is actually the perfect example of how subjective watching a movie really is.

I mean, look at how he treated films like *Speed*, *Speed 2*, or *Knowing*—absolute masterpieces in my book—yet that highly worshipped Kubrick gets slapped with mediocre reviews for stuff like *Orange County* or *Full Metal Jacket*.

You're reaching now. I only brought up Roger Ebert as an example. I could've named any critic.

Just one more thing, brightpilot6. These kinds of debates never end well. Ego won't let people just disagree; it's always gotta go to extremes. You could throw any argument at them—even if I were channeling some high-brow critic like Roger Ebert himself—and nothing would stick. Everyone’s positions are already set in stone; we're all just going through the motions of trading blows. I hate it, but it feels like it's just hardwired this way. I want a stalemate. I want to wrap up these types of discussions—since this isn't just mindless trolling or messing around—the way they work in the real world. One guy says he loves it, the other says he hates it. How? Why? They vent a little, dig a bit deeper (like we do), and then it's over. Just "Alright, whatever, man. You want another drink?"

I don't feel like getting into the weeds of what "getting specific" actually means. You have to start believing in axioms. Not every truth can be proven. Explaining that takes too much effort, and it requires even more patience from the person on the other side.

But honestly, at its core, it's pretty damn simple.

brightpilot6 said:So I have to ask you, which specific internal logic is being violated? Exactly which part?

And what does one even mean by a "caricatured" character? Even someone like Hannibal Lecter could be considered a caricature, yet he is placed within a realistic framework.

If you view the film purely as a cinematic work, the notion that it "has caricatured characters" falls away; instead, the film simply possesses characters as they are presented, whether realistic or otherwise. Does the underlying motive matter—is it a Batman story or some gritty true tale? It's all somewhat moot.

Besides, could you provide just one instance where something unrealistic was portrayed with such realism that it genuinely bothered you? Is there any single trait among the characters in *Dark Knight* that truly feels incompatible with the real world?

You claimed this film operates on paradoxical logic, which is quite a heavy accusation to make, especially when paired with an argument this thin and difficult to follow.

I have little patience for people who argue using empty platitudes, only to resort to insults the moment we touch upon concrete points, much like you and Jessica Gonzalez.

I've dealt with that particular tactic far too many times before.

Look at this nonsense. "The film has characters as it portrays them." You could say that about literally any movie ever made. By that logic, nobody deserves a single critique.

Stop playing games. We went through this whole headache with *The Odyssey* and *Interstellar*, and now you're trying to drag every new trend back to that same tired argument.

brightpilot6 said:So I have to ask you, which specific internal logic is being violated? Exactly which part?

And what does one even mean by a "caricatured" character? Even someone like Hannibal Lecter could be considered a caricature, yet he is placed within a realistic framework.

If you view the film purely as a cinematic work, the notion that it "has caricatured characters" falls away; instead, the film simply possesses characters as they are presented, whether realistic or otherwise. Does the underlying motive matter—is it a Batman story or some gritty true tale? It's all somewhat moot.

Besides, could you provide just one instance where something unrealistic was portrayed with such realism that it genuinely bothered you? Is there any single trait among the characters in *Dark Knight* that truly feels incompatible with the real world?

You claimed this film operates on paradoxical logic, which is quite a heavy accusation to make, especially when paired with an argument this thin and difficult to follow.

I have little patience for people who argue using empty platitudes, only to resort to insults the moment we touch upon concrete points, much like you and Jessica Gonzalez.

I've dealt with that particular tactic far too many times before.

Hold up. I’m not interested in these massive, over-intellectualized debates where someone asks me who built the Monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

That’s like me asking you who designed Gotham City. It's a nonsense question.

And what "acting superior"? We both know who's struggling here—you. You use this pointless deduction thing. You always have a follow-up question, digging into every tiny detail until you focus on stuff that doesn't even matter. You trivialize everything anyone says until the original point just gets shredded into useless little scraps.

Hannibal Lecter is getting treated exactly how he deserves in this context. The analogy is off.