PsyFi WOOHOO!

Awe shit:)

Watched The Human Cenitpede and Audition tonight...Pretty cool. Watched Shiri, Salo, and a couple others in the last week. They were whatever.

Best SciFi EVER? Blade Runner, Dune, Inception, The Matrix , Alien(ALL of the Alien movies), 2001: A Space Odyssey(also 2010), District 9, John Carpenter's The Thing(I have a hard copy that sits on my desk. Have watched dozens of times. First drivein movie I ever saw in 1982), Twelve Monkeys, Brazil, The Day the Earth Stood Still 1951 AND 2008 versions, Invasion of the Body Snatchers(1978 is best version), Moon...

Google "best sci fi movies" for multiple great lists.

One more I want you all to see is Outland. It has Sean Connery and Peter Boyle as the stars. It is from 1981. Most of it holds up very well over time. Everyone should know who Sean Connery is(James Bond). But, not all of the youger folks know who Peter Boyle is. He was Raymond's father on Everybody Loves Raymond. He was also the monster in Young Frankenstein with Gene Wilder. AWESOME PERFORMANCE. Please watch Outland. It is a very good movie and all should enjoy it.

I'll make sure to watch a few of the movies you've posted I hope you enjoyed The Human Centipede

Cool to see Inception on your list. That one really blew me away when I saw that in the theater.

Human Centipede was more amusing than anything. Liked it, though.

I saw Inception in the theater. But, I had a raging migraine and was unable to look at the screen half the time. So, I didn't get to enjoy it.

MOTOKO wrote:

Human Centipede was more amusing than anything. Liked it, though.

I saw Inception in the theater. But, I had a raging migraine and was unable to look at the screen half the time. So, I didn't get to enjoy it.

Ah, I know how that is. That really sucks. Inception just isn't the same on the small screen.

Don't forget Children of Men! That is the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner imo

christchin910 wrote:

Don't forget Children of Men! That is the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner imo

I will watch Children of Men. But, please, don't compare ANYTHING to Blade Runner. Except for, maybe, A.I. Artificial Intelligence. A.I. and Ghost in the Shell Innocence are the only things that have come close to matching the production values of Blade Runner.

Forgive me if I am coming on too strong. Seriously. I saw Blade Runner in the theater as I also saw Tron, Dune, A.I., and most others...

I am not an elite a-hole critic. I just know a few things and have a pretty good sense of taste for visuals.

Is Children of Men on par with the Book of Eli?

My opinion on the Book of Eli is that its visuals were wonderful. The audio was phenomenal. I can play it and just listen to the music and drift off in to a different place. Such a haunting soundtrack. The acting is, of course, wonderful...Denzell Washington, Gary Oldman, Tom Waits...The message is not for everyone. Not going to spoil anything. But, some people might find it to be an evangelical movie when it certainly isn't.

PLEASE, don't compare anything to Blade Runner. Blade Runner is in its own class. It changed so many things about SciFi in particular but movie making in general.

MOTOKO wrote:

christchin910 wrote:

Don't forget Children of Men! That is the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner imo

PLEASE, don't compare anything to Blade Runner. Blade Runner is in its own class. It changed so many things about SciFi in particular but movie making in general.

I've never really been able to get into Blade Runner. I recognize what it did for the genre, but I think a lot of its impact has been lost, considering how far technology has come since then. I'm afraid the only real way to fully appreciate would be experiencing it when it when it was new. I feel cheated

HeyVanity wrote:

MOTOKO wrote:

christchin910 wrote:

Don't forget Children of Men! That is the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner imo

PLEASE, don't compare anything to Blade Runner. Blade Runner is in its own class. It changed so many things about SciFi in particular but movie making in general.

I've never really been able to get into Blade Runner. I recognize what it did for the genre, but I think a lot of its impact has been lost, considering how far technology has come since then. I'm afraid the only real way to fully appreciate would be experiencing it when it when it was new. I feel cheated

I hear you. It may be a tad slow for you. It not only changed the genre, it also had a heavy noir flavor that some can't follow. It is absolutely not dated. Few modern movies equal the visual and audio values that it has. It is likely that the pace just isn't your cup of tea.

MOTOKO wrote:

HeyVanity wrote:

MOTOKO wrote:

christchin910 wrote:

Don't forget Children of Men! That is the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner imo

PLEASE, don't compare anything to Blade Runner. Blade Runner is in its own class. It changed so many things about SciFi in particular but movie making in general.

I've never really been able to get into Blade Runner. I recognize what it did for the genre, but I think a lot of its impact has been lost, considering how far technology has come since then. I'm afraid the only real way to fully appreciate would be experiencing it when it when it was new. I feel cheated

I hear you. It may be a tad slow for you. It not only changed the genre, it also had a heavy noir flavor that some can't follow. It is absolutely not dated. Few modern movies equal the visual and audio values that it has. It is likely that the pace just isn't your cup of tea.

The pacing wasn't a problem for me, and I actually really like the atmosphere of it all. To me it just felt like nothing was as significant as it should have been. I suppose if the pacing were a problem at all, it would be that it went too fast at the end. It was as if everything had been built up and then nothing really happened. Of course, I'm speaking only of the main plot. Ford's character arc worked out beautifully. And like it or not, the movie is most definitely dated. It was certainly ahead of its time, but there is no denying that technology has evolved since then. This isn't to say I don't have a great deal of respect for the film, as well as everyone involved, however.

MOTOKO wrote:

christchin910 wrote:

Don't forget Children of Men! That is the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner imo

Is Children of Men on par with the Book of Eli?

My opinion on the Book of Eli is that its visuals were wonderful. The audio was phenomenal. I can play it and just listen to the music and drift off in to a different place. Such a haunting soundtrack. The acting is, of course, wonderful...Denzell Washington, Gary Oldman, Tom Waits...The message is not for everyone. Not going to spoil anything. But, some people might find it to be an evangelical movie when it certainly isn't.

PLEASE, don't compare anything to Blade Runner. Blade Runner is in its own class. It changed so many things about SciFi in particular but movie making in general.

?? Children of Men is way better than Book of Eli. I am surprised you like sci fi and haven't seen it. And I didn't say it was better or equal to Blade Runner, just that it is the best sci-fi film post-Blade Runner.

Besides, Children of Men is extremely cutting edge. There wouldn't have been District 9, or Book of Eli, or Cloverfield and plenty other films without Children of Men.

Also, as a side note, why should Book of Eli not be evangelical if people interpret it that way? I mean, isn't the point of art to be entirely subjective?

christchin910 wrote:

MOTOKO wrote:

christchin910 wrote:

Don't forget Children of Men! That is the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner imo

Is Children of Men on par with the Book of Eli?

My opinion on the Book of Eli is that its visuals were wonderful. The audio was phenomenal. I can play it and just listen to the music and drift off in to a different place. Such a haunting soundtrack. The acting is, of course, wonderful...Denzell Washington, Gary Oldman, Tom Waits...The message is not for everyone. Not going to spoil anything. But, some people might find it to be an evangelical movie when it certainly isn't.

PLEASE, don't compare anything to Blade Runner. Blade Runner is in its own class. It changed so many things about SciFi in particular but movie making in general.

?? Children of Men is way better than Book of Eli. I am surprised you like sci fi and haven't seen it. And I didn't say it was better or equal to Blade Runner, just that it is the best sci-fi film post-Blade Runner.

Besides, Children of Men is extremely cutting edge. There wouldn't have been District 9, or Book of Eli, or Cloverfield and plenty other films without Children of Men.

Also, as a side note, why should Book of Eli not be evangelical if people interpret it that way? I mean, isn't the point of art to be entirely subjective?

I have it DLing right now. Will watch and give a genuine unbiased opinion. I just don't think it is even SciFi based on everything I have seen. Looks completely like a post apocalyptic movie which could be SciFi, but, usually isn't. Just like Book of Eli isn't SciFi. I like post apocalyptic movies. Some of the zombies ones suck because there is too much drama thrown in. Like 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later. They are O.K. But, way too much drama. I think the studios are trying too hard to appeal to the female audience and just missing the mark by putting too much Lifetime Channel in them.

Same with the series The Walking Dead. COMPLETE and utter joke. The makers totally ignored numerous pieces of reality. One of the main characters is standing on top of a building and sniping zombies in an offhand stance with a bolt action rifle with a scope and there is no recoil.

#1- offhand shooting is a rare thing. VERY hard and impractical.
#2- Most every bolt action rifle has a decent amount of recoil.

Movies don't have to be 100% accurate. But, for f***'s sake, they could at least try.

And, what is really sad is that the movie got good ratings. BIG GIANT JOKE.

MOTOKO wrote:

christchin910 wrote:

MOTOKO wrote:

christchin910 wrote:

Don't forget Children of Men! That is the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner imo

Is Children of Men on par with the Book of Eli?

My opinion on the Book of Eli is that its visuals were wonderful. The audio was phenomenal. I can play it and just listen to the music and drift off in to a different place. Such a haunting soundtrack. The acting is, of course, wonderful...Denzell Washington, Gary Oldman, Tom Waits...The message is not for everyone. Not going to spoil anything. But, some people might find it to be an evangelical movie when it certainly isn't.

PLEASE, don't compare anything to Blade Runner. Blade Runner is in its own class. It changed so many things about SciFi in particular but movie making in general.

?? Children of Men is way better than Book of Eli. I am surprised you like sci fi and haven't seen it. And I didn't say it was better or equal to Blade Runner, just that it is the best sci-fi film post-Blade Runner.

Besides, Children of Men is extremely cutting edge. There wouldn't have been District 9, or Book of Eli, or Cloverfield and plenty other films without Children of Men.

Also, as a side note, why should Book of Eli not be evangelical if people interpret it that way? I mean, isn't the point of art to be entirely subjective?

I have it DLing right now. Will watch and give a genuine unbiased opinion. I just don't think it is even SciFi based on everything I have seen. Looks completely like a post apocalyptic movie which could be SciFi, but, usually isn't. Just like Book of Eli isn't SciFi. I like post apocalyptic movies. Some of the zombies ones suck because there is too much drama thrown in. Like 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later. They are O.K. But, way too much drama. I think the studios are trying too hard to appeal to the female audience and just missing the mark by putting too much Lifetime Channel in them.

Same with the series The Walking Dead. COMPLETE and utter joke. The makers totally ignored numerous pieces of reality. One of the main characters is standing on top of a building and sniping zombies in an offhand stance with a bolt action rifle with a scope and there is no recoil.

#1- offhand shooting is a rare thing. VERY hard and impractical.
#2- Most every bolt action rifle has a decent amount of recoil.

Movies don't have to be 100% accurate. But, for f***'s sake, they could at least try.

And, what is really sad is that the movie got good ratings. BIG GIANT JOKE.

I personally love 28 Days Later.

And Children of Men most definitely is science fiction, however, just very very soft sci-fi. There is not too much about technology, but more social themes.

Audience interpretation is certainly a part of art, but I wouldn't say it is supposed to be ENTIRELY subjective... People just make it that way. Obviously, there is a point the artist is trying to get across, and if you know what that is then there's really nothing to be interpreted. I suppose people will always see and interpret things in a way that is relative to their personal beliefs, but that doesn't make them correct. The intent of the artist could be something else entirely. If anything, I'd say that the point of art is the initial raw emotional effect it has on the audience, rather than the way they tear it apart through over-thought, bias-tailored interpretation. Sorry, sounding preachy... This kinda thing's my jam

MOTOKO wrote:

christchin910 wrote:

MOTOKO wrote:

christchin910 wrote:

Don't forget Children of Men! That is the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner imo

Is Children of Men on par with the Book of Eli?

My opinion on the Book of Eli is that its visuals were wonderful. The audio was phenomenal. I can play it and just listen to the music and drift off in to a different place. Such a haunting soundtrack. The acting is, of course, wonderful...Denzell Washington, Gary Oldman, Tom Waits...The message is not for everyone. Not going to spoil anything. But, some people might find it to be an evangelical movie when it certainly isn't.

PLEASE, don't compare anything to Blade Runner. Blade Runner is in its own class. It changed so many things about SciFi in particular but movie making in general.

?? Children of Men is way better than Book of Eli. I am surprised you like sci fi and haven't seen it. And I didn't say it was better or equal to Blade Runner, just that it is the best sci-fi film post-Blade Runner.

Besides, Children of Men is extremely cutting edge. There wouldn't have been District 9, or Book of Eli, or Cloverfield and plenty other films without Children of Men.

Also, as a side note, why should Book of Eli not be evangelical if people interpret it that way? I mean, isn't the point of art to be entirely subjective?

I have it DLing right now. Will watch and give a genuine unbiased opinion. I just don't think it is even SciFi based on everything I have seen. Looks completely like a post apocalyptic movie which could be SciFi, but, usually isn't. Just like Book of Eli isn't SciFi. I like post apocalyptic movies. Some of the zombies ones suck because there is too much drama thrown in. Like 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later. They are O.K. But, way too much drama. I think the studios are trying too hard to appeal to the female audience and just missing the mark by putting too much Lifetime Channel in them.

Same with the series The Walking Dead. COMPLETE and utter joke. The makers totally ignored numerous pieces of reality. One of the main characters is standing on top of a building and sniping zombies in an offhand stance with a bolt action rifle with a scope and there is no recoil.

#1- offhand shooting is a rare thing. VERY hard and impractical.
#2- Most every bolt action rifle has a decent amount of recoil.

Movies don't have to be 100% accurate. But, for f***'s sake, they could at least try.

And, what is really sad is that the movie got good ratings. BIG GIANT JOKE.

lol, strange. I'd argue that the drama is what makes all of those GREAT. I absolutely loved 28 Days Later. And the Walking Dead has been amazing so far. To each his own, but I don't know how you'd throw an entire series out the window for making such an inconsequential mistake, lol. That said, it bugs the hell out of me when they forget the recoil, too. They've really nailed the human element, though. Such a fresh take on the zombie genre. Love it.

HeyVanity wrote:

Audience interpretation is certainly a part of art, but I wouldn't say it is supposed to be ENTIRELY subjective... People just make it that way. Obviously, there is a point the artist is trying to get across, and if you know what that is then there's really nothing to be interpreted. I suppose people will always see and interpret the things in a way that is relative to their personal beliefs, but that doesn't make them correct. The intent of the artist could be something else entirely. If anything, I'd say that the point of art is the initial raw emotional effect it has on the audience, rather than the way they tear it apart through over-thought, bias-tailored interpretation. Sorry, sounding preachy... This kinda thing's my jam

I disagree completely. If everything that has ever happened to you in your life, caused you to see a blank white board, and for some reason it is the most beautiful thing you have ever seen, then who is to say your opinion is wrong? Obviously, the white board company did not intend for that to be the purpose, and yet, you aren't wrong for finding something beautiful.

Authorial intent obviously matters because that determines what the piece of art is. But if you are letting that get in the way of how you interpret something, then you are restricting your thoughts.

christchin910 wrote:

HeyVanity wrote:

Audience interpretation is certainly a part of art, but I wouldn't say it is supposed to be ENTIRELY subjective... People just make it that way. Obviously, there is a point the artist is trying to get across, and if you know what that is then there's really nothing to be interpreted. I suppose people will always see and interpret the things in a way that is relative to their personal beliefs, but that doesn't make them correct. The intent of the artist could be something else entirely. If anything, I'd say that the point of art is the initial raw emotional effect it has on the audience, rather than the way they tear it apart through over-thought, bias-tailored interpretation. Sorry, sounding preachy... This kinda thing's my jam

I disagree completely. If everything that has ever happened to you in your life, caused you to see a blank white board, and for some reason it is the most beautiful thing you have ever seen, then who is to say your opinion is wrong? Obviously, the white board company did not intend for that to be the purpose, and yet, you aren't wrong for finding something beautiful.

Authorial intent obviously matters because that determines what the piece of art is. But if you are letting that get in the way of how you interpret something, then you are restricting your thoughts.

You're arguing a point that I already completely agree with, and your metaphor doesn't apply to what I'm actually saying. My argument is that the actual meaning of a piece of art is not subject to the definition of our interpretations. Beauty is not an interpretation of meaning, so, to reiterate, I'm not saying that "the white board" isn't beautiful to the person who sees it. Quite the opposite.

I'm saying that what people see in art is something that is important to them, just that it isn't its purpose. Of course, art will make me think, leading my mind to new places even, but I won't take those thoughts and apply them to the piece, claiming that those particular thoughts are what it was meant to convey. The emotion and thought that a piece of art provokes in you is certainly a part of it, but that doesn't make it entirely subjective. A piece of art may or may not be a statement, which the artist may or may not make clear to us, and I am just saying that it is not ours to define according to our biases. How it influences us is what is ours.

We're arguing the same points, for the most part, just with displaced emphasis.

I am about half way through Children of Men. I will finish it this evening.

It is a very nicely made movie. The visuals are excellent. The acting is wonderful.

However, unless something drastic happens, it isn't PsyFi. Just post apocalyptic...Which is fine. Nothing wrong with that.

Also, as of yet, it isn't in the same class as Book of Eli. Some similar feelings. But, the overall feel is different.

Book of Eli is a post apocalyptic movie with a healthy dose of supernatural thrown in. The entire flavor is different. The soundtrack of Eli is in a totally different class. Eli's soundtrack...its just a whole different ball of wax.

Yeah except post apocalyptic fiction is considered Science Fiction.
And of course it is a different film, but a lot of elements are similar to Children of Men.

Also, do you not watch films all the way through in one sitting...?

christchin910 wrote:

Yeah except post apocalyptic fiction is considered Science Fiction.
And of course it is a different film, but a lot of elements are similar to Children of Men.

Also, do you not watch films all the way through in one sitting...?

Post apocalyptic is considered SciFi by whom? MadMax/The Road Warrior was post apocalyptic. But, it isn't SciFi. Furthest thing from it. You may certainly disagree if you wish. But, I dare you to attempt to point out the science of Mad Max. Point out where Mad Max resembles any of the basics and fundamentals of Isaac Asimov. Go ahead and try.

Sorry, but, Eli has no government. Men does.

Eli has had a serious incident-Nuclear holocaust. Men simply has no children being born.

Eli has cannibals and roving marauders. Men still has order.

Eli is set in a desolate wasteland. Men is lush and green.

Eli has a supernatural protagonist. I don't think Men does.

They don't compare in the slightest.

And, yeah, I often don't complete a movie in a sitting. I often watch a 3 or 4 movies an evening. This evening, my DL of Men finished rather late. So, I will finish it tomorrow.

A

Resident evil anyone? i like the idea of a virus that destroys a civilization and only a few survivors

[rec]

/thread

MOTOKO wrote:

christchin910 wrote:

Yeah except post apocalyptic fiction is considered Science Fiction.
And of course it is a different film, but a lot of elements are similar to Children of Men.

Also, do you not watch films all the way through in one sitting...?

Post apocalyptic is considered SciFi by whom? MadMax/The Road Warrior was post apocalyptic. But, it isn't SciFi. Furthest thing from it. You may certainly disagree if you wish. But, I dare you to attempt to point out the science of Mad Max. Point out where Mad Max resembles any of the basics and fundamentals of Isaac Asimov. Go ahead and try.

Okay, well Mad Max is a bad example because it is more an action film in a post-apocalyptic setting. Since it hardly alludes to why there was an apocalypse, it is hardly science fiction, but still is.

What you are confused about is the difference between hard and soft sci fi. Asimov was a pioneer of hard sci fi. He was a biochemist after all. Hard sci fi focuses on technology and try to make an accurate prediction of what the future may be like, assuming society progresses in a certain way.

Soft science fiction, is more socially emphasized. For example, Children of Men asks the question, "If everyone in the future became infertile, what would happen?" It is basically social science fiction, but it also has some emphasis on future technology. "1984", "Brave New World", and "Farenheit 451" are all really famous examples of social science fiction.

And if you don't take my word for it, pretty much everyone agrees that post-apocalyptic fiction is science fiction, or at least speculative fiction, which is pretty much science fiction. If you just google around you will see for yourself.

christchin910 wrote:

MOTOKO wrote:

christchin910 wrote:

Yeah except post apocalyptic fiction is considered Science Fiction.
And of course it is a different film, but a lot of elements are similar to Children of Men.

Also, do you not watch films all the way through in one sitting...?

Post apocalyptic is considered SciFi by whom? MadMax/The Road Warrior was post apocalyptic. But, it isn't SciFi. Furthest thing from it. You may certainly disagree if you wish. But, I dare you to attempt to point out the science of Mad Max. Point out where Mad Max resembles any of the basics and fundamentals of Isaac Asimov. Go ahead and try.

Okay, well Mad Max is a bad example because it is more an action film in a post-apocalyptic setting. Since it hardly alludes to why there was an apocalypse, it is hardly science fiction, but still is.

What you are confused about is the difference between hard and soft sci fi. Asimov was a pioneer of hard sci fi. He was a biochemist after all. Hard sci fi focuses on technology and try to make an accurate prediction of what the future may be like, assuming society progresses in a certain way.

Soft science fiction, is more socially emphasized. For example, Children of Men asks the question, "If everyone in the future became infertile, what would happen?" It is basically social science fiction, but it also has some emphasis on future technology. "1984", "Brave New World", and "Farenheit 451" are all really famous examples of social science fiction.

And if you don't take my word for it, pretty much everyone agrees that post-apocalyptic fiction is science fiction, or at least speculative fiction, which is pretty much science fiction. If you just google around you will see for yourself.

Yeah. What you are confused about is whether I care what some people think.

I'm not trying to be rude. I do appreciate your opinion. I just have a different opinion.

Isaac Asimov, Terry Pratchett(mostly), Douglas Adams...are SciFi. Always.

Just as you said, there is softer science fiction. But, for me, it is not the same.

The Lifetime channel plays dramas. But, the dramas they play are in a class of their own. They are made specifically for women. EMOTIONAL women, at that.

The Shawshank Redemption appears on numerous "Best Drama Movie" lists.

I say that the majority of what the Lifetime channel plays doesn't deserve to ever be put in the same room with The Shawshank Redemption.

But, whatever.

I am finishing up Children of Men, right now. I like it. Its pretty good.

MOTOKO wrote:

Yeah. What you are confused about is whether I care what some people think.

I'm not trying to be rude. I do appreciate your opinion. I just have a different opinion.

Isaac Asimov, Terry Pratchett(mostly), Douglas Adams...are SciFi. Always.

Just as you said, there is softer science fiction. But, for me, it is not the same.

The Lifetime channel plays dramas. But, the dramas they play are in a class of their own. They are made specifically for women. EMOTIONAL women, at that.

The Shawshank Redemption appears on numerous "Best Drama Movie" lists.

I say that the majority of what the Lifetime channel plays doesn't deserve to ever be put in the same room with The Shawshank Redemption.

But, whatever.

I am finishing up Children of Men, right now. I like it. Its pretty good.

I am not confused that you don't care what people think. Obviously you do not or you would accept something generally accepted as fact.

And what you are talking about in terms of Shawshank Redemption is the difference between quality. They are obviously the same genre, but that doesn't mean they are all equally good.

christchin910 wrote:

MOTOKO wrote:

Yeah. What you are confused about is whether I care what some people think.

I'm not trying to be rude. I do appreciate your opinion. I just have a different opinion.

Isaac Asimov, Terry Pratchett(mostly), Douglas Adams...are SciFi. Always.

Just as you said, there is softer science fiction. But, for me, it is not the same.

The Lifetime channel plays dramas. But, the dramas they play are in a class of their own. They are made specifically for women. EMOTIONAL women, at that.

The Shawshank Redemption appears on numerous "Best Drama Movie" lists.

I say that the majority of what the Lifetime channel plays doesn't deserve to ever be put in the same room with The Shawshank Redemption.

But, whatever.

I am finishing up Children of Men, right now. I like it. Its pretty good.

I am not confused that you don't care what people think. Obviously you do not or you would accept something generally accepted as fact.

And what you are talking about in terms of Shawshank Redemption is the difference between quality. They are obviously the same genre, but that doesn't mean they are all equally good.

You are just flaming and trolling. I went out of my way to be polite and acknowledge what you said. I simply disagree.

Are you suggesting that I should agree with communists simply because they agree on a thing? And, don't even try to say I am talking about something totally different.

I will continue to attempt to be cordial and polite. But, you will not get me to change my mind using those tactics. Here, I'll help you out-

MOTOKO wrote:

You are just flaming and trolling. I went out of my way to be polite and acknowledge what you said. I simply disagree.

Are you suggesting that I should agree with communists simply because they agree on a thing? And, don't even try to say I am talking about something totally different.

I will continue to attempt to be cordial and polite. But, you will not get me to change my mind using those tactics. Here, I'll help you out-

No, because it is generally accepted that post-apocalyptic fiction is a subgenre of science fiction. Communists agree that Communism is good, but that doesn't mean everyone generally accepts Communism is good, obviously. Logical fallacies everywhere bro.

Political ideologies are a matter of subject and taste, genres are a matter of finding elements that are consistently in pieces of work, and then bunching them together. So for that reason, it is much harder to disagree with something based somewhat in objectivity, as opposed to something entirely based off of subjective taste.

But seriously, if you do not want to think something that is generally accepted to be true, then don't. I was not even being facetious and I wasn't trying to argue, just saying.

@christchin910

"No, because it is generally accepted that post-apocalyptic fiction is a subgenre of science fiction."
By whom? And, you just used the operative word-"subgenre".

"Logical fallacies everywhere bro."
I am obviously not your bro. And, you are obviously not mine.

"Political ideologies are a matter of subject and taste"
Ideology, propaganda, and programming play much larger parts.

"genres are a matter of finding elements that are consistently in pieces of work, and then bunching them together."
I somewhat agree. However, in doing that, you end up with types that are shoehorned in with others that are largely different and share almost nothing in common.

"So for that reason, it is much harder to disagree with something based somewhat in objectivity, as opposed to something entirely based off of subjective taste."
I follow your logic. Except that you just pronounced all political ideologies as being subjective. They are not. See "objectivism" and "libertarianism".

"But seriously, if you do not want to think something that is generally accepted to be true, then don't. I was not even being facetious and I wasn't trying to argue, just saying."
Again, you are speaking in absolutes about something that involves subjectivity and opinions. And, I know you aren't being facetious in any humorous manner. You are being serious when you insult me.

AGAIN, I will say that you are completely entitled to your opinion. Why aren't I entitled to mine?

You seem to think that something "generally accepted as true" makes a thing true. It doesn't. Consensus almost never means truth or right. It simply means that a group has collectively agreed on a thing. Whether the group is right, is a totally different matter.

Wow, deja vu. lmfao XD

HeyVanity wrote:

Wow, deja vu. lmfao XD

Yeah. Am I just a giant jerk, or what?

mods are watching this board we encourage teamwork here :\

"By whom? And, you just used the operative word-"subgenre"."
The general public, hence "generally". And what do you mean "operative"? That is what I have been claiming the whole time, it is a subgenre.


"Ideology, propaganda, and programming play much larger parts."
Okay, now I know the problem. You do not know what subjective means.

"genres are a matter of finding elements that are consistently in pieces of work, and then bunching them together."
I am not arguing whether genres are good, bad, accurate or inaccurate, I am just saying what they actually are.

"I follow your logic. Except that you just pronounced all political ideologies as being subjective. They are not. See "objectivism" and "libertarianism"."
Again, you must not know what subjective means. For your information, I have read every Ayn Rand novel published and I am extremely familiar with objectivism. Subjective means that something can be refuted or is not generally true. If everyone considered objectivism the only true form of government, then our world would be modeled after what Rand proposes. Since people have opinions, then obviously it is subjective.


"Again, you are speaking in absolutes about something that involves subjectivity and opinions. And, I know you aren't being facetious in any humorous manner. You are being serious when you insult me."

AGAIN, I will say that you are completely entitled to your opinion. Why aren't I entitled to mine?

You seem to think that something "generally accepted as true" makes a thing true. It doesn't. Consensus almost never means truth or right. It simply means that a group has collectively agreed on a thing. Whether the group is right, is a totally different matter."

You don't get it. I am not insulting you. This whole time I have been saying you are entitled to your opinion, as long as you can accept that your opinion is not generally agreed upon. That is what I was saying. But you took it as me insulting you, or as me being sarcastic or something. Your last paragraph is what I have been saying. If you go back and reread without defensive goggles on, you will realize this.

"You don't get it. I am not insulting you. This whole time I have been saying you are entitled to your opinion, as long as you can accept that your opinion is not generally agreed upon. That is what I was saying. But you took it as me insulting you, or as me being sarcastic or something. Your last paragraph is what I have been saying. If you go back and reread without defensive goggles on, you will realize this."

^!!!!!!!!!!!

How the Hell do I multiquote? Anyway...

@christchin910 AND HeyVanity,

Peace brothers? Peace friends?

I have defensive goggles on quite often. I am quite candid most all the time. I speak freely always. But, that has gotten me in trouble many times...

I VERY much wish to contribute and get along. I truly do.

Can you two accept an apology? I am a bit judgmental at times. I am 38. I have a decent education. I have a pretty wide ranged skillset and amount of life experiences. I am a mostly benevolent and positive sort of person. I have a quite serious but quite humorous mentality. I know that all doesn't sum me up. It doesn't matter...

I apologize for any of my transgressions.

I will NEVER look down on anyone here. I don't do that sort of thing. I don't care how old you are. I don't care what your skin color is. I don't care about your nationality. I don't care what god(s) or goddess(es) you pray to. I don't care if you like AMD or Intel...ATI/AMD or NVIDIA.

I just want to get along. I just want to be accepted. You don't have to accept everything I say or believe in. I just want my presence accepted. That is all.

this pleases the mods

MOTOKO wrote:

How the Hell do I multiquote? Anyway...

@christchin910 AND HeyVanity,

Peace brothers? Peace friends?

I have defensive goggles on quite often. I am quite candid most all the time. I speak freely always. But, that has gotten me in trouble many times...

I VERY much wish to contribute and get along. I truly do.

Can you two accept an apology? I am a bit judgmental at times. I am 38. I have a decent education. I have a pretty wide ranged skillset and amount of life experiences. I am a mostly benevolent and positive sort of person. I have a quite serious but quite humorous mentality. I know that all doesn't sum me up. It doesn't matter...

I apologize for any of my transgressions.

I will NEVER look down on anyone here. I don't do that sort of thing. I don't care how old you are. I don't care what your skin color is. I don't care about your nationality. I don't care what god(s) or goddess(es) you pray to. I don't care if you like AMD or Intel...ATI/AMD or NVIDIA.

I just want to get along. I just want to be accepted. You don't have to accept everything I say or believe in. I just want my presence accepted. That is all.

That's good enough for me, neckbeard. And, just to clear things up a bit, I have had no issue with any of your opinions. It's been the sudden, unnecessary defensiveness. That said, I'd also like to apologize for my part. Retaliation never helps the situation.

HeyVanity wrote:

MOTOKO wrote:

How the Hell do I multiquote? Anyway...

@christchin910 AND HeyVanity,

Peace brothers? Peace friends?

I have defensive goggles on quite often. I am quite candid most all the time. I speak freely always. But, that has gotten me in trouble many times...

I VERY much wish to contribute and get along. I truly do.

Can you two accept an apology? I am a bit judgmental at times. I am 38. I have a decent education. I have a pretty wide ranged skillset and amount of life experiences. I am a mostly benevolent and positive sort of person. I have a quite serious but quite humorous mentality. I know that all doesn't sum me up. It doesn't matter...

I apologize for any of my transgressions.

I will NEVER look down on anyone here. I don't do that sort of thing. I don't care how old you are. I don't care what your skin color is. I don't care about your nationality. I don't care what god(s) or goddess(es) you pray to. I don't care if you like AMD or Intel...ATI/AMD or NVIDIA.

I just want to get along. I just want to be accepted. You don't have to accept everything I say or believe in. I just want my presence accepted. That is all.

That's good enough for me, neckbeard. And, just to clear things up a bit, I have had no issue with any of your opinions. It's been the sudden, unnecessary defensiveness. That said, I'd also like to apologize for my part. Retaliation never helps the situation.

I bow to you.

Thank you.

A

vazarax wrote:

Bunch of bitchy girls...fuuucckkk

I know, right?

Now, go change your tampon

MOTOKO wrote:

How the Hell do I multiquote? Anyway...

@christchin910 AND HeyVanity,

Peace brothers? Peace friends?

I have defensive goggles on quite often. I am quite candid most all the time. I speak freely always. But, that has gotten me in trouble many times...

I VERY much wish to contribute and get along. I truly do.

Can you two accept an apology? I am a bit judgmental at times. I am 38. I have a decent education. I have a pretty wide ranged skillset and amount of life experiences. I am a mostly benevolent and positive sort of person. I have a quite serious but quite humorous mentality. I know that all doesn't sum me up. It doesn't matter...

I apologize for any of my transgressions.

I will NEVER look down on anyone here. I don't do that sort of thing. I don't care how old you are. I don't care what your skin color is. I don't care about your nationality. I don't care what god(s) or goddess(es) you pray to. I don't care if you like AMD or Intel...ATI/AMD or NVIDIA.

I just want to get along. I just want to be accepted. You don't have to accept everything I say or believe in. I just want my presence accepted. That is all.

Aw, it's all good neckbeard. I apologize too for derailing your thread. I didn't mean for it to get out of hand.

christchin910 wrote:

MOTOKO wrote:

How the Hell do I multiquote? Anyway...

@christchin910 AND HeyVanity,

Peace brothers? Peace friends?

I have defensive goggles on quite often. I am quite candid most all the time. I speak freely always. But, that has gotten me in trouble many times...

I VERY much wish to contribute and get along. I truly do.

Can you two accept an apology? I am a bit judgmental at times. I am 38. I have a decent education. I have a pretty wide ranged skillset and amount of life experiences. I am a mostly benevolent and positive sort of person. I have a quite serious but quite humorous mentality. I know that all doesn't sum me up. It doesn't matter...

I apologize for any of my transgressions.

I will NEVER look down on anyone here. I don't do that sort of thing. I don't care how old you are. I don't care what your skin color is. I don't care about your nationality. I don't care what god(s) or goddess(es) you pray to. I don't care if you like AMD or Intel...ATI/AMD or NVIDIA.

I just want to get along. I just want to be accepted. You don't have to accept everything I say or believe in. I just want my presence accepted. That is all.

Aw, it's all good neckbeard. I apologize too for derailing your thread. I didn't mean for it to get out of hand.

I thank you and return the apology to you

This place is pretty cool