Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
wvParticipantBad plot, bad writing, bad acting.
——————
Well just from the cover-photo in that vid,
I can honestly say, that woman is the finest
actress I’ve ever seen on a surf-board.w
v
wvParticipantTrump will eviscerate her.
She doesn’t even know how to tell the truth. Even with the moderator agreeing with and vouching for her lies Trump will still get his message through to the people. Its about jobs. Its about accomplishment. Its about trustworthiness. Its about being in touch in that our people and much of the western world is now repudiating globalism.———————–
Well, it will be so totally surreal, i may have to watch some of the
Great Hillary v Donald Debate Of the Century.I havent watched any debate since Bobby Riggs debated Billie Jean King, but i might actually watch some of this Trump vs Hillary thing. It will be like Jason vs Freddy. Or the Alien vs Predator.
Its going to be a spectacle.
And the Dems will think Hillary won, and the Reps will think Trump won…and the undecideds? I dunno. I dunno who they are. Will they like either one? Trust either one? Will they like Trumps tone? Hillary’s system-itis ?
My gut tells me they will go for Hillary very slightly. But i dunno. I’m just guessing the undecideds will lean slightly towards the ‘safer’ candidate.
w
v
wvParticipantI suppose when it comes to politics and religion we all become “dogmatic”. Nevertheless, I genuinely believe that those on the “left” and those on the “right” tend to follow what has been called a process of “group think”. Meaning there is a far greater consensus on political issues than one might find in a group of so called centrists. At it’s worst there can be the “let me know what my group thinks of this so I can be consistent and won’t ruffle the feathers of those I know”. By definition a “moderate” or “centrist” does not have a “group” to measure his views on issues. I suspect when it comes to abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control, etc there is far more divergence among moderates than you would find on the “left” and the “right”, especially as one approaches the polar ends of both these bodies.
As far as “socialism” goes-your right it’s far more complicated than what we give it. Growing up in the 50s words like “communism”, “socialism” were dirty words that few of us knew anything about other than these were the bad guys. Today with globalization we see bits and pieces of socialism everywhere including here in the U.S. The word doesn’t carry with it the stigma it once did-although talking to some of my friends my age you wouldn’t know that.
My problem with it is the ideology not the end game. To me the weakness in the system is in the “planners”. A collectivist planned economy means there must be central planners. And the only way that will work is if there is total commitment to the “plan”. And how does that exactly work in a society of free people. What do you do with the dissenters or those who disagree? Who will choose the planners and what plans take priority when there are competing legitimate interests? Who will make these decisions. And those dissenters cannot get in the way if the system is to work. Would there be debate or would that be looked upon as subversion? Would dissenters be eliminated? (not an entirely shocking expectation) Somewhere I read that collectivism and individualism are political oil and water.==============
Agreed. Preachin to the choir comrad 🙂
w
v
wvParticipantI think you have a bit of a blind-spot when it comes to this “leftists are dogmatic” thing. Just because we dont agree with what YOU call ‘moderate dems’ or ‘moderate reps’ doesn’t make us ‘dogmatic’ — it just mean we disagree totally, and completely with Dems and Reps on some very fundamental policies. THEY disagree with us too — why dont you call the ‘moderates’ dogmatic ?
w
vWell, he is in a minority on this board, and probably feels besieged every time he posts politics here. I think Waterfield is as honest in his views as can be reasonably expected of humans, and he practices what he preaches by working with charities and fundraisers and neighborhood/community building stuff. It must be a little odd to him to step into this particular corner of the world and find his politics criticized by a tag team of leftists.
============
Agreed, Zooey. We all like Waterfield. Heck i like anybody that likes dogs and surfing and the Rams.But still, he’s a moderate-centrist-capitalist-californian-lawyer,
and thus, i think we are gonna have to torture him until he confesses
and then he’ll have to be burned at the stake to purify his soul.
Its for the best, really.w
v
wvParticipantWhy do you take criticism of Hillary so personally? You actually seem to get invested emotionally, as if critiques of HC were attacks on you. Or that’s the sense I get.
That’s a valid criticism . It’s a fault I have and wish I didn’t.
Okay fair enough.

Have some pie.
—————-
Is that a capitalist pie or a socialist pie? Or a moderate pie?Because i only eat socialist pies.
w
v
wvParticipant1)Speaking for myself I am not in favor of a socialistic form of government. That’s a biggie.
2)Also I find that the “progressives” are very dogmatic in their views not willing to give an inch when it comes to the views of moderate Republicans or moderate Democrats. In fact in my experience there is real contempt for those who are not in their camp.
3)OTOH there are many views expressed on this board that I agree with totally and I consider myself..
————————-
Well, the word ‘socialism’ is real real complicated once its untied from abstract notions and actually tied to real examples in the real world. I mean there’s no one ‘socialism’ — there’s been various experiments with it in various forms in various places of various sizes, having various results.
So, i am never content saying “I’m a socialist” — it has very little meaning to me, divorced from actual examples or policies.
In the ‘abstract’ if i were to imagine a wv-utopia, there would probably be a mix of a large amount of socialism (health care, dental care, energy, education, transportation, big-projects like Nasa, etc),
but there would be a bit of anarchism and capitalism mixed in, and i can imagine a nice-utopia with some private property rights. But thats all pie-in-the-sky, speculation, entertainment-thinking.In the real world of our corporotacracy we have to start with what we have and where we are. So, we dont get to be pure ‘socialists’ even if we want to be — we can be in favor of socialist POLICIES which can be fit into a corporotacracy. Like, say National Health Care or something like that.
Enuff about socialism. As far as progressives being dogmatic — I dont see it that way at all. I dont see anymore dogmatism among progressives as any other group. Every political group is gonna have some folks that are more…oh…strident and stubborn than other more conciliatory members of the group. There’s plenty of different personalities among “progressives” as well as rightwingers and centrists and other “ists”.
I think you have a bit of a blind-spot when it comes to this “leftists are dogmatic” thing. Just because we dont agree with what YOU call ‘moderate dems’ or ‘moderate reps’ doesn’t make us ‘dogmatic’ — it just mean we disagree totally, and completely with Dems and Reps on some very fundamental policies. THEY disagree with us too — why dont you call the ‘moderates’ dogmatic ?
You yourself agree with what you call moderates. You disagree with leftists. Why doesnt that make you dogmatic?
w
v
wvParticipantI asked progressives yesterday if there have been any Presidents of this country who if running today they could support. Any takers?
————-
Hmmm, i dunno. Generally speaking the system eliminates all but the pro-corporate-anti-poor candidates.Lets see…no to Obama, no to Bush, no to Clinton, no to Bush1, no to Reagan, no to Nixon…
Maybe FDR? Yeah, I’d probably vote for FDR.
w
v
wvParticipantThese are the things that bother me. Even more than rather Hillary is actually a neo -conservative or not.
There is-across this country-a sweeping movement of racist nationalism that threatens our very fabric. We can all intellectually pontificate here about socialism vs capitalism as we continue to march toward the destruction of the very core of what this country was founded upon.
At its essence the American people don’t understand and don’t care about the differences in capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. In fact most do not understand the difference in the ideologies. Our only interest is self interest. We have lost our compassion for those who suffer whether it be here or in other parts of the world. We are far too interested in being on the “right side” of political movements.
In my opinion what we can do is -instead of debating the intellectualism of whether socialism is a better form of government than capitalism or whatever etc-is to look across the street at our neighbor who is less fortunate and suffering and say: what can I do.
Once we actually begin to actually involve the suffering-instead of using them as a political weapon we just might be able to accomplish something that would bring happiness to a few. I honestly don’t care about winning an intellectual debate in a classroom. If this is a classroom and that means I’m excluded from the fraternity here. So be it.===================
Well, no-one is going to argue against helping real people in real ways. Sure, everyone should do that on a local level. No argument.
People around here are doing things for the flood victims for example.
But man, its often impossible to simply divorce good-works from politics, Waterfield. I mean there is a relationship between the politics/ideologies of the Clintons/Trumps/Reagans/Bushes and what happens on the local level, in the real world.
I dont care about ‘winning an intellectual debate’ either, fwiw. But i have opinions, and this is where i often spout them.
You are not excluded from the class-room here, btw. Your political views are just in the minority here. Like bnw’s. Its no big thing, right. Savor it 🙂
w
v
wvParticipant<
Well-I don’t know if I’ve ever called leftists “extremists”. I’ve said there is the far right and the far left. I’ve called the “left” “progressives” but I doubt I’ve ever used the language “extremists”.Another thing: I’ve never claimed “moderates” have the “truth” and the only truth as some have accused me. I have however called crazy right wingers extremists. And I mean that in a dangerous way.
As far Hillary being a neo-con or even supported by neo-cons I look at those who during Bush administration got us into these wars. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rice, Perle, Feith, etc. I have never heard or read any compliments from these people for Clinton. Lots of despicable assertions but never anything that would leave one to believe she is part of that camp. The vote for war in Iraq. Sure – in retrospect she and most of Congress wishes that could be a do-over. But not the neo-cons that I listed. The would do the same and more over again.
And yes I expect my Secretary of State to be aggressive in protecting the interests of this country and its citizens. That’s part of the damn job.
—————–
Ok, well i thot you used the word ‘extremists’ for both the ‘far left’ and ‘far right’ and i thot you equated the two. Its no big deal either way, but thats what i thot you thot.I dont like to quibble anymore of little stuff, and labels and stuff. I am more interested in getting to the crux of things. The heart of our differences.
What would YOU say are the clear, fundamental differences betwixt the ‘leftists’
on this board, and yourself (centrist?), for example?
I mean, dum it down for me — what’s the crux of it. In a couple of sentences.w
v
wvParticipantWhat do the progressives think of her compared to Jill Stein ?
=================
Warren is not as progressive as Jill,
but she’s a “progressive Democrat”.
I’d definitely support her if she was running for Prez.If Hillary loses, then I would hope Warren would run
next time.w
v
wvParticipantI dont give legatron any slack for missing 52 yarders.
If you are gonna be a legatron you have to make 52 yarders.54, 55, I give him some slack. But 52? Gotta make those.
Thats my arbitrary cut-off — 52 yards. I expect my kicker
to make everything from 52 and under.w
v
wvParticipantBtw,
I really hate zombie shit. I’ve had this debate with SanfRAM and we differ on the subject. I can’t explain it well, but zombies just ruin stuff for me. The undead ruins stuff for me. So I won’t watch what are supposed to be other “prestige TV” shows like AMC’s Walking Dead. That’s an aesthetics thing for me. And philosophical. I can deal with monsters, as long as there is something behind the eyes. Nothing behind the eyes? Pure emptiness? Um, no thanks. I’d rather watch Trump make an ass of himself than lifeless eyes.
But the GOT has altered this with the Night King and their other undead folks like Jon Snow.
It’s . . . . maybe, complicated. ???
================
I never much liked zombie shit until the Walking Dead series
came along. I have enjoyed many of the episodes on that show.
It’s a lot more than a ‘zombie show’.w
v
wvParticipantI don’t know what the answer to this is because even if we had stricter gun laws, this kind of crap would happen anyway.
=========================
Yup.
The NRA will say, the best approach would be to arm
all the children of gun-owners.You watch, they’ll say somethin close to that 🙂
w
v
wvParticipantWell-I “think” it depends on how we define “thinking”. IMO thought can only occur through a language…
…Maybe I am a communist.
======================
Yeah, i suppose it depends on how we define/use ‘thinking’ and ‘language’.
If by ‘thinking/feeling’ we mean somethin purty close to human experiences,
then thats an issue science can help answer.When i toy-around with ideas like “do galaxies think/feel” I do not use the word ‘think’ or ‘feel’ to mean anything similar to the human-experience.
And thus, science is probably no help, and its all just wild-speculation. Which i enjoy 🙂Perhaps quarks and universes and planets and galaxies and water and plutonium,
think/feel in some unique ‘beyond-human-science-and-understanding’ kinda way.The Gaia idea, for example. Who knows.
….what was the question again? …oh yeah…dogs. The thing about dogs is, only Big dogs can think. Those little yappy, nervous, quivering dogs dont
really have brains. They have bladders inside their skulls. Its a proven fact, comrad.w
v
wvParticipantIt’s a very strange mix — the folks whom Hillary has pissed off to no end.
————–
One of the interesting/exasperating problems is the label “extremist”
Like, for Waterfield, and other “mainstream-centrists” the leftists are ‘extremists’. And so are the Trump supporters. Both, equally “extreme”.
I mean that IS the ‘mainstream’ view. The corporate-network-view. The CNN view, the ABC view, the NBC view, the NPR view, the NY Times view, the mass-corporate-media-view.
How does that work exactly? How do Bernie and Trump supporters get thrown in the same boat? And how do leftists become ‘extremists’ ? And how does a closet-neocon like Hillary become a “non-extremist” to the mass-media ?
Its all quite strange.
w
v
wvParticipantYeah, dogs think and feel. They just do it in their own way. Dog-thinking. Dog-feeling.
The ‘feeling’ issue links to the animal-rights issue. Should humans be exerimenting on other beings that feel pain? Dogs? Cats? Monkeys? Rabbits? Mice? Etc.
I like to wonder about other ‘reality-experiences’ btw. Do galaxies ‘think’ ?
Do they ‘feel’ ? Universes? Quarks? Well, who knows.w
v
wvParticipantSeems to me that there is more vitriolic hatred toward Hillary from those on the left than for that idiot Trump. I don’t get it. I understand disagreements over her policies. That’s natural. But I don’t get what to me borders on personal malice. I’ve seen it here and I’ve seen it with friends who call themselves “progressives”.
Something else I don’t get. For those on the far right and those on the far left there is more contempt for those in the middle than those with polar opposite views and policies. Maybe it’s as simple as anarchists -either right or left-don’t really care for non-anarchists. When did “moderate” become such a filthy word?
====================
Well, i dunno. It seems pretty clear to me, the ‘leftists’ around here
loathe Hillary for all kinds of reasons, and they loathe Trump for all kinds of different reasons.Lots of vitriol? Yup. Indeed there is.
As far as issues with ‘the middle’ or ‘centrists’ — and issues the middle has with righties and lefties — thats a big subject. I dont even know where to begin with that one, because it also implicates ‘individuals’ and their distinct personalities and not just general-political-groups.
I’ll grant you this election is bringing out a lot of significant
differences among the electorate. I dont really ‘care’ about the vitriol. What is most salient to me is simply the Vast gulfs and differences among
the world-views out there in Amerika. Is it even possible to govern a country of people with such vast differences?w
v
wvParticipantAnd that was without Q.
w
v

wvParticipantI cant stand Will, never could, but its a perfect example
of Trumps challenge. He’s already won over all the angry white males.
He’s not gonna pick up any more. So where will his swing votes come from?Hillary needs the Bernie-leftists.
Who does Trump need?
Seems to me this George Will thing reflects a significant problem/hurdle
for Trump. I dont think his advisors are laughing this off the way
he appears to be.w
v
wvParticipantThere is a lot of controversy over Darwin’s views on what came to be known as Social Darwinism. Regardless of what he truly believed, we have to remember that he was a product of his time. He was not raised in isolation but in a society that had a deeply entrenched class system and believed unquestionably in the superiority of the white race.
=======================
Have you been to the stain?
w
vEvolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain

DAYTON, TN—A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin—author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement—made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton.
“I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits,” said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed “Scopes Monkey Trial” and is widely considered one of Darwinism’s holiest sites. “Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested.”
Added Freiberg, “Behold the power and glory of the scientific method!”
Since witnesses first reported the unexplained marking—which appears to resemble a 19th-century male figure with a high forehead and large beard—this normally quiet town has become a hotbed of biological zealotry. Thousands of pilgrims from as far away as Berkeley’s paleoanthropology department have flocked to the site to lay wreaths of flowers, light devotional candles, read aloud from Darwin’s works, and otherwise pay homage to the mysterious blue-green stain.
Capitalizing on the influx of empirical believers, street vendors have sprung up across Dayton, selling evolutionary relics and artwork to the thousands of pilgrims waiting to catch a glimpse of the image. Available for sale are everything from small wooden shards alleged to be fragments of the “One True Beagle”—the research vessel on which Darwin made his legendary voyage to the Galapagos Islands—to lecture notes purportedly touched by English evolutionist Alfred Russel Wallace.
“I have never felt closer to Darwin’s ideas,” said zoologist Fred Granger, who waited in line for 16 hours to view the stain. “May his name be praised and his theories on natural selection echo in all the halls of naturalistic observation forever.”
Despite the enthusiasm the so-called “Darwin Smudge” has generated among the evolutionary faithful, disagreement remains as to its origin. Some believe the image is actually closer to the visage of Stephen Jay Gould, longtime columnist for Natural History magazine and originator of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, and is therefore proof of rapid cladogenesis. A smaller minority contend it is the face of Carl Sagan, and should be viewed as a warning to those nonbelievers who have not yet seen his hit PBS series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage.
Still others have attempted to discredit the miracle entirely, claiming that there are several alternate explanations for the appearance of the unexplained discoloration.
“It’s a stain on a wall, and nothing more,” said the Rev. Clement McCoy, a professor at Oral Roberts University and prominent opponent of evolutionary theory. “Anything else is the delusional fantasy of a fanatical evolutionist mindset that sees only what it wishes to see in the hopes of validating a baseless, illogical belief system. I only hope these heretics see the error of their ways before our Most Powerful God smites them all in His vengeance.”
But those who have made the long journey to Dayton remain steadfast in their belief that natural selection—a process by which certain genes are favored over others less conducive to survival—is the one and only creator of life as we know it. This stain, they claim, is the proof they have been waiting for.
“To those who would deny that genetic drift is responsible for a branching evolutionary tree of increasing biodiversity amid changing ecosystems, we say, ‘Look upon the face of Darwin!'” said Jeanette Cosgrove, who, along with members of her microbiology class, has maintained a candlelight vigil at the site for the past 72 hours.
“Over millions of successive generations, a specific subvariant of one species of slime mold adapted to this particular concrete wall, in order to one day form this stain, and thus make manifest this vision of Darwin’s glorious countenance,” Cosgrove said, overcome with emotion.
“It’s a miracle,” she added.
http://www.theonion.com/article/evolutionists-flock-to-darwin-shaped-wall-stain-2523
wvParticipantTotally off topic but I used to enjoy court room dramas. Is there a TV show you know of that portrayed criminal court proceedings fairly accurately?
——————-
Not that i know of. To be honest, if they were accurate,
they’d be incredibly boring and tedious. Yer basic everyday courtroom stuff
is usually really boring. The interesting stuff occurs in the jail, when the client and defendant talk off the record.w
v
wvParticipantWell, apart from all the ‘dick sucking’ dialogue, the defendant
was supposed to be given ‘discovery’ (autopsy reports, police reports, lab reports, etc)
and apparently all he was given was the Indictment (Ie, the piece of paper telling him what he is charged with)So, the Defendant was just asking for what he is entitled to. When the lawyer said “I gave him everything i have” that is kindof a dead give away, that he didnt give him what he was
entitled to.The judge just should have asked the lawyer “What, exactly did you give the defendant?”
And if the lawyer hadnt gotten discovery and given it to the defendant, then the judge should have just ordered that, and continued the trial, and on to the next case.
w
v
wvParticipantI haven’t read many classics so i dont have a big list to draw from, myself. Does Jack London count? Or is he just kid-stuff. I loved Call of the Wild.
w
v
“There is an ecstasy that marks the summit of life, and beyond which life cannot rise. And such is the paradox of living, this ecstasy comes when one is most alive, and it comes as a complete forgetfulness that one is alive.
This ecstasy, this forgetfulness of living, comes to the artist, caught up and out of himself in a sheet of flame; it comes to the soldier, war-mad in a stricken field and refusing quarter; and it came to Buck, leading the pack, sounding the old wolf-cry, straining after the food that was alive and that fled swiftly before him through the moonlight.”
― Jack London, The Call of the Wild
wvParticipanthe Brexit vote wasn’t racism. It was nationalism.
“Nationalism” can be the foundation for “racism”. Just another way to excuse it. 87% of Britain’s population is white. Immigration fears was in large part the fuel that drove brexit. My own definition of racism includes the “I don’t like you because you’re different than I am”. Britain has a long hx of this type of thinking. My wife is Irish. My neighbor is from England and (jokingly) refers to her as the “mick” across the street. If he was serious I would call that a racist remark.
The push back from globalization can also be said to be racist based. The uneducated older working class saw their jobs being taken by those “different”-hence the move toward “nationalism”.
The EU was born from two world wars and provided a sense of economic security among a fractured Europe. Now Germany will once again become the strongest economic power in Europe a forbidding thought to those who recall the past. Putin could not be more happy today.
A personal anecdote: My closest friend owns a manufacturing company in the sports business. A huge market for his equipment is in Europe and the far east. He is rightfully concerned that with the loss of our strongest ally in the European market he will be unable to continue to access those markets with the same economic freedom as before. And yet he is still a strong supporter of Trump who champions brexit. Go figure.
================
Racism and Nationalism are two different things (I dont like either one, fwiw)
but they blur-together a lot of times with the Trumps, and America-firsters (and Britain-firsters). Its hard to separate the two, sometimes.Oftentimes you have a faction of america-firsters who are not racist but they are nationalist, joining forces with the racist-crowd to get their guy elected.
Crooked-Hillary and the Crooked-Billionaire, battling for America’s…um…soul-less-ness.
Strange times.
w
v
wvParticipantJill Stein.
That’s all I’m sayin.
w
vJune 25, 2016 at 9:41 am in reply to: Trumaine Johnson allowed the second-lowest QB rating in 2015 #47059
wvParticipantIf he is as good as PFF indicates, then he deserves a franchise contract. Using 9.0% of the cap for a franchise CB and averaging the future salary cap estimates. He could expect a contract of $64 million for 4 years.
Josh Norman just signed a contract for $75 million for 5 years. No wonder the Rams are OK with paying him $13.8 million this year. That is ~9.0% of 155 million. I didn’t think they would pay him that much, but I see now that with the salary cap going up each year and if he is really that good, that is the way things are.
Good analysis. But now, hunches. My hunch is they don’t sign him, they replace him next year. I like Tru but I don’t have the impression that he’s a “top 8 keeper” type player.
And, I think these coaches can take spare parts from a garage sale and manufacture a good secondary out of it.
————–
I tend to agree.w
v
wvParticipantNew studies explore why ordinary people turn terrorist
Research in the Iraqi war zone point to key characteristics among ISIS soldiers and their opponents..personal sacrifices made for outfits such as the Islamic State can be understood, but only by accounting for values he describes as “sacred” and by tracking the way in which individuals identify with like-minded comrades.
Collective identity
….Instead, he argues, young people adrift in a globalized world find their own way to ISIS, looking to don a social identity that gives their lives significance. …
==================
wiki
Denial of Death
E. Becker… Becker argues that a basic duality in human life exists between the physical world of objects and a symbolic world of human meaning. Thus, since humanity has a dualistic nature consisting of a physical self and a symbolic self, we are able to transcend the dilemma of mortality through heroism, by focusing our attention mainly on our symbolic selves. This symbolic self-focus takes the form of an individual’s “immortality project” (or causa sui), which is essentially a symbolic belief-system that ensures oneself is believed superior to physical reality. By successfully living under the terms of the immortality project, people feel they can become heroic and, henceforth, part of something eternal; something that will never die as compared to their physical body. This, in turn, gives people the feeling that their lives have meaning, a purpose, and are significant in the grand scheme of things.
Becker argues that the arbitrariness of human-invented immortality projects makes them naturally prone to conflict. When one immortality project conflicts with another, it is essentially an accusation of ‘wrongness of life’, and so sets the context for both aggressive and defensive behavior. Both parties will want to “prove” their belief-system is superior, a better way of life. Thus these immortality projects are considered a fundamental driver of human conflict, such as in wars, bigotry, genocide, and racism.[citation needed]
Another theme running throughout the book is that humanity’s traditional “hero-systems”, such as religion, are no longer convincing in the age of reason. Science attempts to serve as an immortality project, something that Becker feels it can never do, because it is unable to provide agreeable, absolute meanings to human life. The book states that we need new convincing “illusions” that enable us to feel heroic in ways that are agreeable. Becker, however, does not provide any definitive answer, mainly because he believes that there is no perfect solution. Instead, he hopes that gradual realization of humanity’s innate motivations, namely death, can help to bring about a better world….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death
wvParticipantI’ve seen most of the episodes that are on dvd.
Its a very uneven series. Some of the writing is really dull
and some is good. Peter Dinklage is so good he can take bad writing
and still make it work.The Ice Wall is a nice concept, i thought.
I thought the scenes where John Snow got kilt
were good.The Dire Wolves should have been much bigger, btw. Wolves are never
scary on tv cause they always look too small.w
v
wvParticipant
wvParticipantnoam for a few seconds on brexit
————————————
After asking him why he thought ‘Brexit would be a bad idea’‘UK government is at least as neoliberal as the EU. For all its flaws, the EU offers some kind of independent and (by comparative standards) constructive option in world affairs, and could do more. With Brexit, it will be weaker, and Britain will be even more a colony of the US. Britain will also lose the advantages of closer interactions with (relatively) civilized Europe.’
-
AuthorPosts

