Posts by brightbadger54

Frank Moore4 said:Man, you clearly haven't even heard of the Avengers, let alone sat through the end credits scene. ☕

Oh, please—spare me the condescension regarding who knows what. I’m quite well-versed in Marvel's lore and the comics—you know, the actual stories—and I was playing most of the games based on them back when we were still using Commodore 64s or playing Terminator on old PCs. I didn't watch the credits, sure, but that was simply because I wasn't interested. 🤣. 😉

wiredraven82 said:Schwarzenegger basically fixed those kinds of numbers for Americans in his movies—he just went around taking out whoever he felt like.

🤣
I suppose I agree, I really do. But still—the Nazi resistance in that film was practically non-existent. You have these starving prisoners breaking them like toothpicks, yet they’re carrying plasma guns and somehow barely hitting any Americans? Then, once the heroes finally get their hands on that tech, they suddenly wipe out ten different nations with a single shot. It's a bit much, I guess. 😁

Personally... I find X-Men more engaging. And as for the sequel to Captain America: The First Avenger, the movie feels somewhat purposeless.

bluebison8 said:I actually prefer it to the recent X-Men films. It has fewer plot holes and actually manages to be funny.

I wouldn't go that far. To me, the movie really highlights how much Americans seemingly can't stomach the idea of being outmatched by Nazis during the World War. In this film, it’s practically one American soldier taking down twenty Nazis, whereas in the actual war, the ratio was closer to thirty Americans for every one Nazi. That was my only real gripe—it feels like Hollywood always tries to flip the script when depicting real conflicts where they didn't come out on top, almost as if it's driven by some sort of collective frustration. The whole point of the story felt lost to me once I realized the entire thing just revolved around tallying up how many Nazis an American soldier could kill on screen; the narrative essentially devolved into a cheap scoreboard. It felt rather pointless.

It honestly tanked the quality of the film for me. I felt more of this sense of American resentment and obsession than any connection to the comic or the artistry of filmmaking itself. Sometimes, regardless of how great an American movie might be, you can tell it's just radiating desperation. You see the same thing today with modern war-themed PC games.

It’s an okay film. There is one scene where you will absolutely die laughing—seriously, tears involved—but there are also moments where you just find yourself thinking, "My god, how stupid is this?" Still, I suppose it works if you just want to turn your brain off and relax. It hit theaters here in the States quite a while ago. Personally, I’d probably just wait to catch something like this on a streaming service, since you can basically watch them the same day they premiere back in their home countries. 😁

The movie is alright, I suppose. I made a point to catch it on my very first day in theaters here in the States. It wasn't anything to write home about, though—I honestly expected more, especially since the trailer actually managed to get me somewhat hyped. In two days, 🙂
Cowboys & Aliens is hitting streaming services right on schedule, which I'm actually looking forward to; the concept seems a bit more original, at least.

Sandra Parker3 said:It's not selfishness, it's just common sense.
Though I'm a bit skeptical about that whole criminal comparison; sometimes handing over the keys is actually the smart move, which has nothing to do with being selfless and everything to do with staying alive. But hey, whether that counts as selfish or not is irrelevant at this point.

Would you give a homeless person your home and a shower for one day? Of course you would, unless you're a "selfish" person.

Really???
Yeah, if you think that's "normal," I seriously hope you vet whoever you're letting through your front door first.

"Reason" is a pretty subjective term. The actual issue here is selfishness.

See? You’ve even managed to find a justification for your own selfishness so you don't have to help those who actually need it. It seems everyone is selfish, and some people go as far as creating excuses just to maintain that selfishness. Personally, I think it's perfectly normal to help someone in need. 🙂

ambersailor85 said:Not sure where I picked this up, but it’s a killer metaphor for how society works today—even if it feels like an old fable from somewhere out East.

Basically, some higher power decides that when you pass away, you head to a place that looks like a dining room filled with every delicious meal imaginable. The rule is simple: once you've eaten, you get to indulge in whatever your heart desires next—whether that's just lounging around, chasing romance, or whatever else—and the cycle just repeats every day. It doesn't matter if you were a saint or a sinner; everyone goes to the same place. The only catch? You have to eat using chopsticks that are over six feet long.

Selfish people who end up there can never actually enjoy anything. Their greed drives them to try and grab as much food as possible, but they’ll never succeed because those massive chopsticks make it impossible to grab a bite. On the flip side, generous people will just feed one another and live better than they ever did on Earth.

What’s your take on the people who only care about themselves?

I heard this specific version was used to describe the souls stuck in Hell.

There is no such thing as a selfless person, really. It is merely a question of in which situations an individual chooses to exhibit their selfishness. Everyone has limits. Even someone like Mother Theresa was likely selfish under certain specific circumstances. The point, I guess, is whether that selfishness harms others or just serves oneself. If it affects others negatively while only benefiting you, that doesn't necessarily make it "wrong"... for instance, "would you give the keys to your house and car to a gang of criminals?" or "would you hand your child over to total strangers?" Of course you wouldn't; you would be acting selfishly by keeping them for yourself. Would you hand over your home and access to a shower to a homeless person for a day? Naturally, you would if you weren't a "selfish" person. Until people realize that the entire world—and perhaps the meaning of life itself—is governed by the highest principle of contradiction, they will struggle to find balance and improve themselves. Some people rebel against contradiction, while others eventually grasp what it means, at which point life takes on a slightly more pleasant hue.🙂

The Jewish and Roman interpretations of faith and the Bible are, incidentally, incorrect. They were constructed to rule over people through fear. Hell and Heaven have nothing to do with that.

wearyhawk83 said:Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with being self-focused as long as you aren't stepping on anyone else to get ahead. If everyone just took care of their own business first, the world would actually be a much happier place—we'd all start sharing from a place of abundance instead of just trying to make every little trade!

You have essentially just described capitalism. Is capitalism a joyful thing, or is it actually a construct where man selfishly looks after his own interests? Selfishness doesn't take from others; it deprives them. Theft is what takes from others.