Messages

Hehe, what a pile of crap...spartans were warmongers, obsessed with strange ideals and a perverted will to fight, why make them into some sort of freaking freedom force (aren't we all tired of hearing the "we fight for freedom!"?), and why do all "persians" look like either robots or weird aliens?
Sure, if a mixture of Troy, Alexander and whatever other grand "historical" warepics from the recent 5 years - along with some awkward racial eliticism - is all you crave from your cinema experience, then congrats.

As a greek comic book artist, I've been through the '300' comic book discussion a lot of times.  The Spartans historically are fascinating for many reasons, though the americanified perversion of their values and philosophy by Frank Miller sadly falls short of delivering on the various premises such a comic/movie would have going for it.

Not only are the spartans made into a US Marine corps. unit, the persians are ridiculous, Efialtis, the traitor is made into a mutant midget, generally, the whole thing is silly. Sadly a lot of people liked the comic, and Frank Miller's work generally to the point where they defend it as an interesting point of view and using historical data to make it. I see it as the semi-incoherent ramblings of a stupid right-wing american and his juvenile 'what would be COOL' methodology in storytelling. Each to their own, I guess.

On a further note, it's highly embarassing for a comic book superstar like Miller to turn his comics into panel-by-panel translations of films. If he had any real love and faith for the medium, he'd keep his comics comics. Now all he's saying with his actions is 'I wanted to be a film-maker, not a comics artist!'. Weak, and stupid. If he wanted to make movies, make something original for that medium, don't copy-paste your comic work.

Yes, it's illegal, yes it's stealing. But is it WRONG? Up to one's morality. If it's a bad thing, it's not a huge bad thing as most of the time you're putting a small hurt on a company that is an enormous beast out for blood. Don't forget, it's the huge companies that are waging the war against consumer piracy. Those companies are not looking out for the best interest of art, nor artist, but for their monetary gain. Now, someone would come and post a sarcastic 'so, helm, a company wanting to make money is bad? lol you naive naive person' to which I reply: "fuck you." and also yes, there's such a thing as milking a consumer, and there's another in bleeding them dry.

I think art shouldn't be product. Artists should be supported by goverment, organisations and charitable individuals. It might not be superstar money, but fuck the superstars anyway. People that wanted to make a living out of art should expect to barely make it. It's conductive for good art to struggle, anyhow! Besides, consider how great it would be for art to not have to think wether what you're making is sellable or not. Of course some would abuse the system and make crap for art and get money for it, but hey, the same people abuse the welfare system, and it's not a huge bleeding sore for the economy, is it? I'm not talking for much more money than that. If you want more money, tour, do exhibitions, become good enough that some wealthy person takes you under their wing or your country aknowledges your skill and gives you more grant money. If you don't want more money, just go on creating with your bad self for the little you get and get by with. If you can't cut it get a real job.

Most artists that feel threatened by piracy are doing so because they think it'll mean they won't be making a living out of it, not because it will deny them the millions they feel they deserve.

I download a lot of music. From all that I download, I tend to love 10 cds a year or so. Most of them I buy. I think that's sensible, and I don't think all the other stuff I downloaded I should have had to buy at all since I didn't love them. I don't see how this is hurting anyone. I am sampling the music - and now that disk space is running out - if it's not satisfactory after a few listens, it gets deleted. If it is, it might linger about for a while until I either decide I love it enough to buy it for liner notes, art, whatever, or I decide it's not good enough and it goes. Darwinian method.

Lots of the music I buy is obscure, on some strange german mailorder (I prefer Hellion) or at a live show (where I also get t-shirts to support the band if they were good enough) and the good thing about the music I listen to is that I know that most artists I'm ripping off would rather have me listen to the music than not listen to it at all, even if it means downloading it. Heavy Metal people are like that (metallica notwithstanding). They only get annoyed if the downloaded music is of bad encoding, 'cause it makes their stuff sound worse, and that's understandable. I promise to steal only good quality mp3s!


EDIT: an interesting thing about 1 dollar per song on iTunes, if the concept is actually embraced, and people stop putting out cds... I think artists will just make one song at a time. Not book for 60-minute album recording sessions. That'd be interesting, for me. Then again, an artist that has made a 15-minute opus would feel ripped off! I guess that means most songs will be in the 3-4 minute range. Oh pop music, how much more will you become like disguised advertising.

RickJ, great post. Though aspects of it don't apply in my situation, as I am in Greece, on the whole very well put. Seconded.

When religious axioms are stuff like turning sticks to snakes, walking on water, turning a loaf of bread to many, afterlife and all sorts of that stuff, then yes they are based on nothing real.

I feel bad about replying to you as I do because I don't believe in gods so presumably we're more alike than different, but your way of simplifying stuff irks. Those miracles aren't axioms of faith (sic), they are manifestations of divine power. What's so logic-breaking about an effect that be attributed to a lot of different things anyway? It's where the power to conjure this effects comes from with which you should have a problem, as an atheist. That power comes from an all-powerful, omnipresent, omniescent God. That's your target. Not sticks to snakes and walking on water.

"Based on nothing real" buh that you think you can call upon authority because you like science on this matter is absurd. You have no idea what real is, as you are a subject in a whole, only able to see outside, not gaze inwards, not understand anything. You know nothing.

Ow. Id rather go for early 2007

I am an administrator (meaning I can block users and delete pages)

I love how telling this is.

Nostradamous, read bio's post well.

Science is not a belief.
When I read a science book it shows me facts, it shows me proofs and if I use my mind to analyze it I would reach the same conclusions.

Please concern yourself with a primer on the concept of epistemology. Eric should probably do likewise. Just because scientific constructions seem to suggest a theory is dependable (say, gravity) it doesn't mean there isn't an act of faith on your part to hold is dependable as such. Is it a more justified assumption to say gravity will continue to exist next second than to say a God exists? Probably. Is it a far more rigoriously tested premise? Yes. Is it sensible and helpful to every-day life? Absolutely. But is it the result of an action of faith on the part of a human being to believe something to be true, ultimately? Yes.

I see this as knee-jerking. Seculars have become afraid of the word 'faith' because of the stack on negative connotations involved in religious belief. But it requires faith just to get out of bed in the morning. Faith that today will be a better day than the last one, that you are bettering yourself, that you will have reason to smile, that life is good...

We are animals. We need to survive. Faith is necessary.

So... then faith can motivate people to do negative things?

That's a value judgement, and a pretty ambiguous one at that (negative for whom?) but in the sense you mean it - if I understand you correctly - sure! Just like any other impulse can motivate you to do negative things. I think you're putting undue pressure on faith and religion (and I'm the one whose soul belongs to satan) when the whole of the human condition leads to a lot of hilarious (and sad) stupidity and error constantly.

Does an atheist believe in an Afterlife? Does he believe the conciousness goes on after death, regardless of a belief in a divine power?

Discussing the concept of an Afterlife actually becomes interesting if you remove the religious aspect.

Most atheists have no time for concepts of immortal souls. Therefore if some believe in an afterlife, it would at least have to be a finite one.

So... then faith can motivate people to do negative things?

That's a value judgement, and a pretty ambiguous one at that (negative for whom?) but in the sense you mean it - if I understand you correctly - sure! Just like any other impulse can motivate you to do negative things. I think you're putting undue pressure on faith and religion (and I'm the one whose soul belongs to satan) when the whole of the human condition leads to a lot of hilarious (and sad) stupidity and error constantly.

I can't accept that every bad thing that was attributed to faith was actually just a knowing or unknowing cover for something else. Unless you can accept that faith is animalistic and instinctual and leads people to do animalist and instinctual deeds.

Sure. Faith is animalistic and instinctual and leads people to do animalistic and instinctual deeds.

"Gay people should not be allowed to marry/make love/adopt/exist because God says it is an abomination." I would say that is a direct link to faith.

I'd say it's a direct link to instinct, mistrust, fear and disgust of that which is different. Faith is just a conduit for that sort of thing, like a lot of other stuff people do.

And if people create religions and beliefs then they are creating them to justify certain things they want or don't want. So faith is based on human fears/desires/ignorance?

Sure, yes, I think so.

Many things need to be viewed and investigated by the tools which we are granted; the mind and the senses.

Sensory perception lies a lot. 'Logic' fails us. Looking at someone pointing at a map and going to that foreign land isn't the same thing. We fail at experiencing truth, we fail at inspecting our own inner workings. It is like teeth trying to bite themselves.

I can understand why people turn to the fantastic and the divine.

An interesting scientific fact is that, theoretically, you can use next to no energy to create information, but to forget HAS to take energy.(i could be wrong, read that in a hard sci-fi book, as well a book on quibits and information theory) So...who knows, it may mean nothing.

That sounds quite wrong actually. As for Gandalf.... okay.

Well in an information theory point of view, it's sort of a correct way to think. What consumes energy is not to take in information, it's to get rid of the disinformation.

The thing I quoted is wrong on many levels... First of all, scientific theories concerning the "creation of information?" What? Are we taking data assimilation here, what? Second, nothing the human mechanism does takes 'no energy', and to the point, the process of frogetting most probably is a passive byproduct of the memory mechanism, therefore taking less energy to put waste out than to burn info in. Oh well.

An interesting scientific fact is that, theoretically, you can use next to no energy to create information, but to forget HAS to take energy.(i could be wrong, read that in a hard sci-fi book, as well a book on quibits and information theory) So...who knows, it may mean nothing.

That sounds quite wrong actually. As for Gandalf.... okay.

People without faith can do bad things just as well. Eric, for example the Nazis (do I win this internet argument now?!) killed millions of gupsies, jews, communists, homosexuals, whatevers based on philosophical grounds, not religious. In fact, I'd say all the bad things you attribute to faith-based beliefs are actually using faith to justify their atavistic (that is purely instinctual, animalistic) ignorance, fear, need for control and domination.

..people like Sektor 13 should stop trying to put meanings and explanation over so simple stuff.

Why?
If faith motivates somone in this life, I don't see it as a neccesarily negative thing.

I agree, though I have no faith I don't see on what authority Nostradamus proclaims what people should and shouldn't do.

edit: ... oh wait, Nostradamus. Figure of authority on wordly things. I'm setting myself up for a joke here.

I want to be reincarnated as a sea-turtle. That would effing rock.

You Will Be Reincarnated as an Imperial Attack Spaceturtle!

Yeah. Just imagine that whole reel being a shitty time. Kinda scary. So I am concerned with orchestrating my death in a proper manner. I am leaning towards total and utter disintegration. Gone in a milisecond, no time for my brain to remind me of what a jerk I was.

I enjoy the term 'brain death'.

I'm from the boring kind, I don't think there'll be anything for me once I die. Wormfood.

However, I keep thinking how in dreams for example, time seems severily relative (haven't you had the 3 second month-long dream?) and therefore if the brain can make me feel as if an eternity is a few minutes, I'm more concerned with the circumstances of my death. I'd rather it not be severily violent or generally painful because if the brain retaliates with my own personal hell for a few minutes-cum-centuries in brain-time, that'd be awful. 

You can't answer a simple question with a direct answer that doesn't involve a huge dubious smiley?

Candle, is that what you mean?