Posts by Matthew Anderson4

No theory here, nobody cares. Don't even bother opening it.

Not happening. After that disaster in the Portuguese league, I'm done playing games. Move this over to the Other Leagues thread.

Not really saying I do, just looking back at Western Christian civilization without trying to pit it against anything else. When it comes to the tangible stuff—the actual works you can see and touch—I see success more than luck. But success doesn't always mean you're happy.

honestly, at this point I can't even tell the difference between trolling and, well, just trolling

Honestly, we all pick up bad language way before we actually have any real reason to use it for anything other than being curious kids. We hear it from the adults, repeat it, and get a reaction. Usually, the older folks give you the "that's bad" look, while your buddies give you the thumbs up. I remember walking down the street just to drop a new one right in front of the neighborhood kids. The juicier the word, the better. If it made the parents gasp, it was an instant hit with my crew. (The girls played differently, obviously—they didn't seem to care about this stuff as much, maybe why they swear less.) Back then, it wasn't even about frustration; it was just fun. Just a joke. And blasphemy? Yeah, we learned that one fast too. It was the ultimate way to make heads turn anywhere you went. Personally, I used to be terrified of using God's name in vain around my folks, even though they weren't exactly devout. That specific phrase just had weight. Then puberty hits, hormones kick in, and suddenly I'm throwing that exact phrase at everyone just to show them how much I don't care. It was the easiest way to say "get lost." We all went through it. And it sticks. Look, I’m no psychologist, but my amateur take is that what we curse at matters way less than how people react to it. In my experience, the words that stir up the most chaos are the ones that vent the most frustration. If everyone around you worshipped a pink glowing rhino, you'd probably wonder why you're even swearing at a rhino. But honestly, asking "why do I swear at *this*?" is kind of pointless. The answer doesn't really matter. You should just ask "why do I swear?" period. That's the real question.

Harold Rivera47 said:Sure, there are overlaps in how different cultures teach right from wrong, but the actual focus is totally different. It was Western Christian civilization that really drove the scientific, industrial, and medical revolutions. Despite those few similarities, the social institutions just aren't the same...

The real edge of the Western, patriarchal, capitalist way of life is how it pushes people to hit their full potential through constant competition, the grind, and non-stop innovation...

I'm with you there. But we should probably talk about the downsides this kind of society forces on people. There's plenty of evidence—you see it everywhere. Maybe not right here, maybe not literally, but I wouldn't call Western society "happy." Honestly, I can't even remember a time—whether it was the modern era or the old religious days—when things actually felt happy.

Since I snagged the last spot on the previous PDF, I'm claiming the final one again

Harold Rivera47 said:Well, look, not everyone has to be a priest or join a monastery to live out Christian ethics. Even today, most people in this country follow a Christian moral code without even realizing it. Don't kill, don't steal, don't swear, don't lie; study hard, work, help others... all of that stems from the Ten Commandments and the Gospels.

It’s the same thing in India—people follow the moral imperatives of their own culture, which is why we ended up where we are, and they ended up where they are...

Yeah, okay. Personally, I wouldn't label basic common sense rules like "don't kill" or "don't steal" as strictly "Christian" morality. They were obvious long before Christianity showed up. And those moral imperatives in India say the exact same thing about right and wrong, if you're trying to imply there's some kind of moral decay in the East compared to our supposedly perfect West.

http://www.scribd.com/search?categor...=bhagavad+gita 🤷

In times like this, I’d say finding the right words is pretty much impossible, especially if you aren't some smooth talker. Just try being the best friend you can manage. If that fails, might as well be their harshest critic.

Enjoy yourselves, you little hedgehogs. Once the paperwork clears in a few days, I'm banning all of you.☕

forgotten by history

wiredraven82 said:Honestly, Pierce Brosnan is basically Bond to me—I see him and immediately think Bond. But I guess that's just because we grew up during his run. 🙂

Fair point. It's all about what you grew up with. Personally, Brosnan isn't my top pick; I'd put Sean Connery above him, though seeing Connery doesn't trigger that instant "Bond" feeling for me.

wiredraven82 said:Look, I don't really see Bond as a "superhero."🙂 They're basically just action/adventure flicks about a secret agent. Sure, he always survives, lol, but calling him a superhero is a stretch...🙂

We should probably just start a separate poll for "who's the best Bond actor" or something. This thread isn't really the place for it.

Whatever, Pierce Brosnan. He fits right into other genres without any issues.☕

Wesley Snipes, hands down. Though Brosnan worked as Bond, maybe not my absolute favorite version.

Patrick Martin said:his shots are just art for art's sake. clever guy.
doesn't work on me.

Patrick Martin said:man, I need action. I want aliens, contact, conflict, a union—something. At the very least, give me heavy space philosophy or some cosmic poetry. If 2001: A Space Odyssey didn't have that core tension between the computer and the astronaut, it would’ve been nothing.
Cameron and Ridley Scott actually deliver the good stuff.
just solid movies. hits all the marks.

I'm obsessed with Andrei Tarkovsky and those long close-ups of trash-filled bars. perfection.

Funny coming from a hardcore Tiki Taka fanatic. ☕

Patrick Martin said:why didn't Tarkovski care about the money? because his movies cost a damn fortune.

🤣

nimblemarlin6 said:He does, he just cares more about the story.

Man, I don't know the guy personally, just his work. Whether he has it or not in his private life doesn't really matter to me. In his films, I just see another undeveloped mind on that front.

Patrick Martin said:It definitely isn't wandering through some abandoned warehouse reciting philosophy, or showing off space set to opera.

Yeah, no kidding.

True.

Anyway, since we’re talking about philosophy in Sci-Fi, I gotta say—in my book, it's easily the best genre for tackling deep stuff. And I don't mean just the themes forced by the setting, but the much deeper layers. That’s why someone like Cameron will never be at the top for me. As great as he is at handling different parts of Sci-Fi, the guy has about as much philosophical depth as a puddle. Just isn't there.

Voted for Tarkovsky just because he had fewer votes than Kubrick. But they’re still tied for first.

I'm gonna shred you

edit: done ☕