Jump to content
Detective

Recently watched movies

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I'm not VBS (obviously :smile: ),...

Why not?? I could use a virtual double! Am I not good enough for you?!?

 

On 10/6/2019 at 12:53 AM, Carol the Dabbler said:

Maybe I'm just naive, or possibly lacking imagination, but I don't think that's true -- or at least I don't want to believe that it's true.  It seems to me that who you call a villain often depends on your own point of view, while from their point of view they may actually be heroes.  (I'm still appalled by what they do, but I think that describes a lot of terrorists, for example.)  Then there are people who do bad things in order to get even (with a specific person, or a specific group, or with the world in general), which would of course imply there's a backstory.  And there are a certain number of just plain nut jobs, but I assume that either they think what they're doing is justified (because of their delusions) or else they don't really understand what they're doing, and in either case, I wouldn't call them evil, just nuts.

You apparently disagree with what I've just said and/or would like to point out that I'm overlooking something.  I'm interested to know your reasons, so please disagree right back at me!

18 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I would agree with the idea that some people are just pure evil, know it, enjoy it, and make no excuses for it … someone like Ted Bundy comes to mind. Thankfully, I think that sort of person is extremely rare;  but I do believe they exist.

I appreciate your point about moral relativity, but I hope the concept of evil is not entirely relative … that is, I hope we can universally agree that certain acts are unjustifiable under any and all circumstances. Child molestation, for example. But I'm aware that moral boundaries can get pretty blurry in some circumstances (such as war). But I'm more comfortable believing some things are still absolutes, even in this day and age. That's probably considered pretty old fashioned, eh?

 

12 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

OK, I hadn't thought of those people, perhaps because (as you say) they're mercifully so rare.  I assume they would be classified as psychopaths, meaning that they lack any concept of good / evil, in which case can their actions be classified according to that spectrum?  Their behavior toward their fellow humans might be considered analogous to a scientist's behavior toward lab rats -- not that I condone either one, but the latter is generally accepted as normal.

@Carol the Dabbler, I don't know if you are still interested to hear my answer, or if I could put it coherently, but yes, I do believe there are people who are pure evil, although I sort of understand, like Arcadia mentioned later, it could be confusing on where is the line?

I read about people like Josef Fritzl, and I wouldn't say he was unaware of the pain and suffering he caused, he himself admitted that he knew what he was doing is wrong, he understands and it was not impulse. I have read about people torturing animal for fun, doing unimaginable stuffs like, I'm sorry, this imprints in my mind forever, even when I only read words, burning the eyes of  puppy while tying them down and breaking their bones. They do it merely for fun, for money or for fetish (more on this), or just for no purpose, I would say these kind of people belongs to that category.

In my previous office, one time, I was trapped in the lunch room with coworkers from another departments (I always ate at odd hour to avoid people, but that time I wasn't quick enough, hence 'trapped'), and overheard their conversation. One of the coworker, a sweet guy who was always helpful (I was in project with him before) shared stories casually about what he did when there was a topic about animals. Anyway, I knew and visited his office quite regularly while we were still working together, he had a pet in the office, a snake which he took care very well. This is not a backstory though, since I can't make sense of the connection. So anyway, and again, sorry if it's sickening to read, turn away if you must. His parents have big collection of pets in their house where he grew up to his adulthood before he lived abroad. I think the conversation started when another colleague shared a story that she was bitten by a friend's dog (just a bruise) and he regaled  us with stories of him beating his dog to death with a stick when it barked on him, the other time strangled his monkey with a chain when it threw something at him, and putting his hamster under a hot water running tap when he was bitten by it, all with amusing way of telling a light afternoon stories, and the rest, although obviously not as amused, just laughed along, trying to be polite? or to fit in. Oh, I yelled at him. 

One thing that I have to disagree with both of you, unfortunately, I don't think these people as as rare as you think, some people hurt by becoming serial killer and/or physically hurt other, but at similar level, some people can hurt others emotionally and psychologically, without remorse, knowing full well what is the impacts of their action and feel indifferent or even enjoy it.

 

The last discussion you guys had, about the line, I had thought about it as well. Can we consider something like fetish as a mental condition, that, in some way, 'justify' the behaviour? But where is the line? Can we consider paedophilia as just different sexual orientation?

I'd say not. I think. I hope. Imo, the line is where someone/something else is being hurt by the hurting party  who understand their own actions. I think that differentiate a lot, with homosexuality, as mentioned, for example. So the POV is not merely on what others think is right or wrong, but the impact of the action to the receiver. Does it make sense?

 

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

here's my review of Ad Astra: save your money!

Ah, thank you! I thought I missed what could be good, and thankfully I missed it.

 

6 hours ago, Artemis said:

"Joker" was exceptional and extremely well done.  Joaquin Phoenix deserves an Oscar for that performance.

Agree. I'm still thinking about it, and to add something without sacrificing my sleep, I think it's a very beautiful movie as well. It should have at least some attention for Best Picture.

 

P.S Crosspost Carol, it took me to long to write and re-log-in. after being kicked out, my usual forum courtesy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toy story 4

 

7/10

 

After I rewatched 1 and 2 out of nostalgia (but not 3 because that shit was too dark) I finally got around to watch this one. Spoiler alert: there was someone (can't remember who, too lazy to check) who joked about the possibility of a toy story 22, this movie shows that it's doubtful that's going to happen:

So Woody is reunited with Bo Peep who was missing in 3, and he meets a bunch of toys desperate to have a new owner. Because Bonnie and her parents can't stay at the carnival forever, he decides to stay so he can help find every toy a new owner. So Bonnie "lost" Woody, and Jessie is going to be in charge of the toys now and Andy is going to be pissed. Moral of the story: never give your old toys to a 3 year old, they don't have the same meaning to a toddler as to a teenager who had them for years. I also hated they made Buzz dumber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Live action Aladdin: 8/10. 

Don't hit me. I am probably the only person on the planet who appreciates the Disney remakes. 

My only gripes are Aladdin's hair (trim those ugly wisps at the nape of your neck or grow it out properly, boy) and that one moment where both husband and I were screaming in unison: "rub the goddam lamp Jasmine, what's wrong with you?!?!?" 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

I do believe there are people who are pure evil, although I sort of understand, like Arcadia mentioned later, it could be confusing on where is the line?

 

6 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

I don't think these people as as rare as you think, some people hurt by becoming serial killer and/or physically hurt other, but at similar level, some people can hurt others emotionally and psychologically, without remorse, knowing full well what is the impacts of their action and feel indifferent or even enjoy it.

You definitely have a point there.  I know someone who is presumably no serial killer (I don't think they have the stomach for it), but does nevertheless take advantage of friends and family, wanting frequent sympathy for their "bad luck" (meaning they screwed up again) and also wanting to be supported financially because their "bad luck" cost them yet another job.  They seem to consider all of this special treatment to be perfectly reasonable, and in fact owed to them, and will attempt to shame or emotionally blackmail friends / family who refuse to be taken advantage of yet again.

But since they're not doing anything really illegal, nor have they quite ruined any lives, I would say they haven't quite crossed the line.  I think this type of sociopath is (fortunately, I guess) far more common than the serial-killer type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2019 at 7:26 AM, Arcadia said:

That brings up an interesting point … if we began accepting psychopathic behavior as "normal", would that also make it "okay?" I mean … I was raised to think homosexuality was a sin, but now that it's widely accepted, I accept it too and think the sin is to demonize it. I just had to see the other side of the story to see it another way, but I'm well aware that many people still see it as a sin. Can we both be right at once? Or is one side actually "wrong" to believe what they do? If psychopathy became widely acceptable, would people like me start to think it's okay? Interesting to think about, eh? (Don't look to me for answers, though! This is the kind of crud my philosophy professors used to torture us with. Thank God it was my minor and not my major. :D )

Generally speaking I would probably say it's okay to believe what you want, but not behave as you want.  For instance, if you think homosexuality is a sin, then that's your right; but that doesn't give you the right to (mis)treat homosexuals any way you deem fit.  Likewise, you can be a psychopath and believe whatever you believe, as long as you don't hurt/violate others as a result.

On 10/7/2019 at 10:38 AM, Van Buren Supernova said:

One thing that I have to disagree with both of you, unfortunately, I don't think these people as as rare as you think, some people hurt by becoming serial killer and/or physically hurt other, but at similar level, some people can hurt others emotionally and psychologically, without remorse, knowing full well what is the impacts of their action and feel indifferent or even enjoy it.

I agree here too, I don't think that psychopaths are as rare as believed.  I do think that truly sadistic psychopaths, the ones who hurt people (whether it be physically, emotionally, or psychologically) purely for the enjoyment and satisfaction of it, are the rarest of them.  But I'd say it's not uncommon to encounter those who hurt people out of self-interest and feel entirely remorseless or indifferent about it.  In my experience they can do this because they are able to justify their actions easily to themselves, in a warped way.  Occasionally you will encounter one who doesn't even care enough to have a justification.  But oftentimes, when you dig deeper into their thought process, you will find that there is twisted logic behind their actions and they have weaved themselves a narrative that justifies them.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Artemis said:

I'd say it's not uncommon to encounter those who hurt people out of self-interest and feel entirely remorseless or indifferent about it.  In my experience they can do this because they are able to justify their actions easily to themselves, in a warped way.

Yes.  For example, "You have it; I want it; therefore you should give it to me."  And the person I mentioned above seems utterly bewildered if you don't immediately hand it over.  Of course I have no idea whether the bewilderment is real or merely an act they put on in order to get what they want.  As far as I've ever been able to tell, this person is all facade (though I don't see how that could literally be true).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation! Although I do feel impelled to point out that my question was "is psychopathic behavior okay if society came to consider it as normal behavior" and not "is it okay to be a psychopath." But it sounds like we've basically reached a consensus, anyway, which is ... it's okay to be anything as long as you don't hurt people. Of course, then you could argue about what is and isn't hurtful …  (Philosophy, the ultimate rabbit-hole...…)

(Actually, my minor was "Philosophy and Religion" … the first was all about never finding a definitive answer, and the second was all about accepting a definitive answer. It's amazing I survived to graduation. :smile: )

Edited by Arcadia
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood your question, but I can see how my answer didn’t make that obvious.  :smile:  This was already brought up, but I think that there are some absolutes.  Some hurts are self-evident, and everyone knows that they’re hurtful, whether they argue about it or not.  (I’m certainly guilty of playing Devil’s Advocate in this regard, for the sake of exploring logic.)  Others can be legitimately debated, but not as many, in my opinion.  I think the real debates come when you start discussing which hurtful things should be punishable by law, and which things you should leave alone and hope that people will be considerate and work it out themselves.

I took some theology in college, but it didn’t seem all that definitive to me.  Most of the classes and assigned papers were spent debating theological questions and varying interpretations of texts, including whether it benefits humanity or makes sense for God/gods/religion to exist at all.  For instance, in my Philosophy and Religion class, we discussed and wrote a paper on the contradictory claim that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.  In light of all the suffering in the world (and various other factors I won’t spend time listing), the idea is that it would really only make logical sense for God to be 2 of the 3 things.  Apparently theologians have been trying to reconcile this belief for centuries.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I don't recall a course like that, mine were more the study of religious history and beliefs, and not debating them. I think I would have enjoyed the latter, though.

There were some ethics classes mixed in there somewhere too, I remember I really enjoyed those. I just wish I could remember what I learned. :smile: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Interesting. I don't recall a course like that, mine were more the study of religious history and beliefs, and not debating them. I think I would have enjoyed the latter, though.

There were some ethics classes mixed in there somewhere too, I remember I really enjoyed those. I just wish I could remember what I learned. :smile: 

In Germany, we have these kinds of classes in high school because "religious education" is a thing in public school (you can choose to take philosophy instead if you are are worried that they are going to try and talk you into a faith but as far as I know, most kids just choose those classes based on which teachers they like better). My mother in law teaches it and I love reading some of the papers from her students. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2019 at 6:55 PM, Artemis said:

in my Philosophy and Religion class, we discussed and wrote a paper on the contradictory claim that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.

That sounds very interesting, I wish we did that because I couldn't stand my Religion classes (We didn't lump it with philosophy, don't think we had one).

It's the one I'm least interested in and never bothered to study because they made it so... uninspiring? dull? non reactive? What we did was just reading and remembering gospel, and there wasn't discussion to counter claim or even doubting God, and every explanation was not satisfying, just by the book or none at all. I could tell that even the teacher was bored. 

To topic, watched Peanut Butter Falcon, quite like it, although I had higher expectation. 7/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

... watched Peanut Butter Falcon, quite like it, although I had higher expectation.  7/10

OK, I finally get it -- you guys are just making up half of these movie titles, right?   :blink:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd never heard of it either, but it looks pretty sweet...

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you know me in real life, I am always told that I'm terrible at choosing names; email address, username, in fact, you guys were guilty of that as well when you refused to call me by my chosen name.

But this one, it's a legit movie! Haha

  • Tongue 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2019 at 5:08 AM, T.o.b.y said:

In Germany, we have these kinds of classes in high school because "religious education" is a thing in public school

I would have liked to take a World Theology class in high school if it had been offered as an elective.  I didn’t get much exposure to the doctrinal details of varying religions, and though I have general knowledge, I sometimes feel a bit ignorant when other people bring up their religious beliefs.  Then I spend 3 hours in the Wikipedia rabbit hole, lol.

Having attended a church-school through 7th grade, I did get plenty of exposure to Fundamental Baptist beliefs.  Bible class every day and chapel 3 times a week.

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2019 at 10:38 AM, Van Buren Supernova said:

I think it's a very beautiful movie as well. It should have at least some attention for Best Picture.

I really hope that it does, it deserves it.  Everything about it was so well done.  I’d even call it a masterpiece.  And since it’s a drama rather than an action film, and could be argued to contain commentary on currently relevant social issues (mental illness and the political climate), I’m optimistic they’ll consider it.  I just hope they don’t let the fact that the Joker is a comic book villain bias them against it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I took some theology in college, but it didn’t seem all that definitive to me.  Most of the classes and assigned papers were spent debating theological questions and varying interpretations of texts, including whether it benefits humanity or makes sense for God/gods/religion to exist at all.  For instance, in my Philosophy and Religion class, we discussed and wrote a paper on the contradictory claim that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.  In light of all the suffering in the world (and various other factors I won’t spend time listing), the idea is that it would really only make logical sense for God to be 2 of the 3 things.  Apparently theologians have been trying to reconcile this belief for centuries.

But God isn't all good and all knowing, you know the story of Abraham. I always wondered why an all good, all knowing being would ask a father to sacrifice his son to prove he loves God.

 

I really hope that it does, it deserves it. Everything about it was so well done.  I’d even call it a masterpiece.  And since it’s a drama rather than an action film, and could be argued to contain commentary on currently relevant social issues (mental illness and the political climate), I’m optimistic they’ll consider it.  I just hope they don’t let the fact that the Joker is a comic book villain bias them against it.
Don't forget that Black Panther was nominated for best picture last year, so who knows .
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fantasy Lover said:

But God isn't all good and all knowing, you know the story of Abraham. I always wondered why an all good, all knowing being would ask a father to sacrifice his son to prove he loves God.

As I recall, that was supposed to have been just a test, and God provided an alternative sacrifice (a sheep) at the last minute, to spare Abraham's son.  Maybe the point was to get Abraham to think about what was most important to him.  It does seem like there are a lot of possible interpretations.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Artemis said:

... since it’s a drama rather than an action film, and could be argued to contain commentary on currently relevant social issues ....

Just curious, don't you think an action film could comment on social issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Just curious, don't you think an action film could comment on social issues?

Yes, do.  But action films aren’t normally nominated for Best Picture, no matter how good they are.  “Joker” has much better chances for being a drama.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fantasy Lover said:

But God isn't all good and all knowing,

That was indeed the perspective of some of my classmates and part of the debate.  My poor professor was also a Catholic priest.  Externally he handled all the questioning and debate very well, but I always wondered how he was handling it internally.  He appeared a bit wounded at times.

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I recall, that was supposed to have been just a test, and God provided an alternative sacrifice (a sheep) at the last minute, to spare Abraham's son.  Maybe the point was to get Abraham to think about what was most important to him.  It does seem like there are a lot of possible interpretations.
I know that, but still. An all good and all knowing being wouldn't ask someone to sacrifice their son to prove they love God, a God like that would know that if someone loved Him or not, and the lengths someone would go to prove their love. So there was no need to test Abraham like that, it's a bit sadistic imo.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to what Carol said, it’s also supposed to be symbolic, a mirror of what God was willing to do to save humanity from sin.

My question has always been, why does an omnipotent God need (or perhaps want?) to go to such lengths to save humanity?  Couldn’t He just snap His fingers like Q and be like “There, it’s fixed, you’re saved!”?  I’ve heard some theories (most of which I’ve forgotten), but nothing that really satisfies me.  I guess that’s where faith comes in, and acceptance of the unknowable, paradoxical nature of God.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my paper on the subject, if I’m remembering right, I think I decided to make the argument that God is not all-good.  My reasoning being that, if God is the creator of everything, then in some fashion evil originates from Him as well, and therefore He cannot be all good.  I also posited the idea that He is not omniscient, because in the Bible we see several instances of what seem to be Him changing His mind, giving people extra chances to accomplish something, or having afterthoughts.

If I had to do it over I’d probably write something different, because it’s not the soundest logic.  But in my defense, I had to pop out that paper in a hurry because I had several others to get to, lol.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You folks are reminding me why I consider myself spiritual but not religious. And also why I minored in Philosophy and Religion in the first place … not much practical use, but it made me think. (Assuming thinking isn't of practical use... :wink: )

I'm always a bit flummoxed what to say to people who argue with me that there's only one interpretation of their faith. Isn't the fact that we're disagreeing proof that there is more than one interpretation? And how do they get so convinced that theirs is the only correct interpretation? That sort of certainty, I've never had. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.