Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Rebuttals

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: Rebuttals Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Rebuttals - 3/12/2011 6:17:35 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
And speaking of Pasolini, a homosexual, communist and atheist who made one of the most acclaimed and respected films about the life of Jesus Christ, The Gospel According St. Matthews.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 121
RE: Rebuttals - 3/12/2011 6:40:54 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
Isn't anyone going to laugh at my Genesis joke? : (

_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 122
RE: Rebuttals - 3/12/2011 6:44:34 PM   
Englebertnightingale


Posts: 128
Joined: 20/11/2011

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

And speaking of Pasolini, a homosexual, communist and atheist who made one of the most acclaimed and respected films about the life of Jesus Christ, The Gospel According St. Matthews.



acclaimed and respected by who?

possibly not the homosexual-communist-atheist crowd....

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 123
RE: Rebuttals - 3/12/2011 6:46:04 PM   
Englebertnightingale


Posts: 128
Joined: 20/11/2011

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

Isn't anyone going to laugh at my Genesis joke? : (



I did laugh at it. It was really good.


I was so busy battling against my detractors that I forgot to get around to it. apologies.

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 124
RE: Rebuttals - 3/12/2011 7:20:43 PM   
Englebertnightingale


Posts: 128
Joined: 20/11/2011
quote:

It's precisely what you said and what you kept arguing with funky with.


I do argue with funky. That's my style. My friends say to me: 'yo fool you is one funky arguer' or
'damn son, you argue wit so much of dat funky stuff.'

quote:

Seriously, what are you saying? What are you saying that people here haven't rebutted or isn't totally asinine.


I'm sorry I can't simplify it for you dude. I tried. I really did.


quote:

It's countries whose films I tend to watch and countries who tend to cater for some minorites (in the case of Iran, Kurdish cinema). So shut up.


Okay so this is a finite number of countries. This is more realistic.

quote:

Do you find a lot of films in Japan about the Anu people or the immigrants in Japan? Not many.


It sounds like you're making a case here for the Anu people. I'm arguing on behalf of minority groups. Therefore, wait a moment,
we're on the same team!!! am I right?


quote:

So basically, in the last 20 years, America has given us only these three out of your list (to think you could have mentioned The Grey Zone). Well done on proving my point.


You originally said:

quote:

.... Also, how many times in these last few years have we seen a Hollywood film that is truly Jewish in its theme (coming from the States)? The only one I can think of in the last few years in A Serious Man.


quote:

how many times in these last few years


As an evolutionist, I have a broad sense of time, so 'the last few years' to me is like 100 years or so.

quote:

Doesn't work and the characters simply being Israeli don't count.


According to whose rules do those films not count?

quote:

Yeah poor you. You're like Jesus.


Poor you, you're like Nick Nolte.

quote:

Salman Rushdie was born in Bombay from a Muslim family, ie, were the film is set and the religion of the characters in the film, and he still didn't like it.
quote:

Also, INDIAN CRITICS So put that in your pipe and smoke it.


Okay sorry, what was I thinking? that my Indian friend who grew up in the slums of Mumbai would know better than Sir Salmon Rushdie who went to Cathedral and John Connon School, a private school in Mumbai. Clearly Rushdie would know more about living in the slums than my friend who actually lived in them. And of course the INDIAN CRITICS would know better too. What with their degrees in journalism and all. A lifetime of living in poverty provides little understanding of a lifetime living in poverty when compared to 4 years in a University in relative comfort.

quote:

OH NO SOME IDIOTS WILL TAKE IT SERIOUSLY WHATEVER SHALL WE DO
Well according to you it appears we should not give a shit and be agnostic and apathetic.

quote:

98% as I'm baptized from birth but like some people who have been baptized, I'm agnostic (while others atheists). Still a minority though, I guess.


Well as a baptized agnostic I hope you can get off the fence and find what you really believe in one day.


quote:

Chad isn't India though. It's not one of the most populous countries in the world, a forecoming superpower, it's without a cinema culture to represent it and quite stricken in poverty. They are two totally different countries.


Chad was a valid point. You're just arguing for the sake of it. Of course they're different to India but every cultural group is worthy of acknowledgement.


quote:

Ie, why do you think that?


Kingdom of Heaven was boring. that's what i think. why? because it was.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 125
RE: Rebuttals - 3/12/2011 8:01:35 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

I'm sorry I can't simplify it for you dude. I tried. I really did.


All I got was "THIS FILM SHOWS A BIBLICAL STORY IT'S PROPAGANDA", which is nonsense.

quote:

Okay so this is a finite number of countries. This is more realistic.


I have no idea what you mean, yes, only a finite number of countries actually tries to cater for every minority (maybe add Germany and the UK to that list, I kinda forgot them while I was posting).

quote:


It sounds like you're making a case here for the Anu people. I'm arguing on behalf of minority groups. Therefore, wait a moment,
we're on the same team!!! am I right?


No, I'm making a case that many countries don't bother doing films about they're minorities.

quote:

As an evolutionist, I have a broad sense of time, so 'the last few years' to me is like 100 years or so.


Oh that's bullshit, have movies been round here for 450 million years? No, they've been here for a 100 years or so, I was clearly referring to for the last 20 years or so.

quote:

According to whose rules do those films not count?


According to the ones set here, i.e., films that deal with Jewish faith and religion. Something that deals with a political crisis or conflict wouldn't count.

quote:

Okay sorry, what was I thinking? that my Indian friend who grew up in the slums of Mumbai would know better than Sir Salmon Rushdie who went to Cathedral and John Connon School, a private school in Mumbai. Clearly Rushdie would know more about living in the slums than my friend who actually lived in them. And of course the INDIAN CRITICS would know better too. What with their degrees in journalism and all. A lifetime of living in poverty provides little understanding of a lifetime living in poverty when compared to 4 years in a University in relative comfort.


And clearly you missed the point. Nobody is saying Rushdie has a greater opinion than your friend from the slums, it's saying that people who live or lived there, who are from that region itself, were critical of the film and its plot. The example was to show of criticism to show that some people from India itself were not impressed by the film and not to override your friend's opinion. This. Was. Not. Just. From. Critics. And. Scholars.

quote:

Well according to you it appears we should not give a shit and be agnostic and apathetic.


Yeah, considering anyone who considers the story nothing but a myth will still think it is a myth afterwards. So nothing on Earth will be changed.

quote:

Well as a baptized agnostic I hope you can get off the fence and find what you really believe in one day.


That's becuase agnosticism has nothing to do with the position of belief but that of doubt, genius. Oh, and you are somewhat forced to be baptized here and it's somewhat expected by every member of the society from birth, you don't really have a choice.

quote:

Chad was a valid point. You're just arguing for the sake of it. Of course they're different to India but every cultural group is worthy of acknowledgement.


So Chad is the country that releases most films a year? No, it isn't.

quote:

Kingdom of Heaven was boring. that's what i think. why? because it was.


No, explain more on why it wasn't effective, Also, which version did you see?



< Message edited by Deviation -- 3/12/2011 10:03:34 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Englebertnightingale)
Post #: 126
RE: Rebuttals - 3/12/2011 8:10:20 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: Englebertnightingale


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

And speaking of Pasolini, a homosexual, communist and atheist who made one of the most acclaimed and respected films about the life of Jesus Christ, The Gospel According St. Matthews.



acclaimed and respected by who?

possibly not the homosexual-communist-atheist crowd....


The public which saw it when it was released, the critics, the Oscars and other awards, the Vatican itself, a great deal of filmmakers and yes, some elements of the left wing which included atheists, homosexuals and communists due to its themes.

If you really can't see that portraying a Biblical story which you consider simply consider "a good plot" (the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran has loads of those) is not necessarily propaganda then you are beyond help. It's like needing to be an ancient Athenian to like The Iliad.


< Message edited by Deviation -- 3/12/2011 8:18:28 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Englebertnightingale)
Post #: 127
RE: Rebuttals - 3/12/2011 8:34:59 PM   
Dirk Miggler


Posts: 1106
Joined: 14/1/2009
I'm having visions of a farmer. Field of Dreams, "if you build it THEY will come" type vibe !

Could be cool !

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 128
RE: Rebuttals - 3/12/2011 9:53:25 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair
This thread is officially incredible. Englebert will surely go down in Empire history as one of the finest and most insane trolls we've ever seen, the man's a machine. What do they put in the water in Japan?

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Dirk Miggler)
Post #: 129
RE: Rebuttals - 3/12/2011 10:05:14 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
The Nomura's jellyfish. 

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 130
RE: Rebuttals - 3/12/2011 10:09:00 PM   
Funkyrae


Posts: 20362
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Just stick a pin in a map
Well unless what's been going into the water has only been going in through the timeline of somebody he knows then it's acceptable.

Engel, you're getting silly now. Twice you've dropped the whole thing only to come back in and pick an argument again. OK fine, you have your opinions and no matter how idiotic and moronic they are, considering you refuse to argue with any evidence or fact, you are entitled to them.

However, you are not entitled to keep poking the crocodile with a stick in an attempt to flame the forum and rile people. It would be very wise to drop it completely now.

_____________________________

That's me that is!


(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 131
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 1:03:07 PM   
Rebenectomy


Posts: 5629
Joined: 20/1/2008
From: 10-0-11-0-0 by 0-2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Englebertnightingale

Well it follows that Jesus probably didn't part the water but just parted his hair one day by the water.


No, it was Moses who did that.



_____________________________

Body Hair Beautiful: An Armpits for August Special
http://www.lipstogetherandblow.com/2013/07/body-beautiful.html
Post #: 132
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 1:55:43 PM   
Englebertnightingale


Posts: 128
Joined: 20/11/2011
Hi everyone. I hope you slept well. I tend to disappear and reemerge due to the time difference. So I hope nobody else besides Funkrae interprets this as me 'dropping the whole thing' and then picking it up again. This is what I am doing but simply for the reason that I need sleep in between.

I'm still profoundly thrilled to be a part of this debate and forum with such a diversity of different thinkers, and certainly some very comedic ones. On a few occassions now I have been called a 'troll'. Being new to this movie website subculture, I'm not really sure what that means.

When I think of trolls, I tend to think back to one of my favourite films, that is 1988's Willow, in which Mad Mordagan is explaining the situation of the cursed castle to Willow when subsequently he stands in fresh troll feces. 'Trolls' he says grimly, to which a bewildered Willow replies 'I hate trolls.' as he surveys the barren plaza.

Anyway I digress. Those in the know, enlighten me, please. What do you mean by 'troll'?

Okay let's rebutt!

I was surprised to see the return of Funkrae who is sounding well and truly tired of this debate.

Funkyrae (1)

quote:

Well unless what's been going into the water has only been going in through the timeline of somebody he knows then it's acceptable.


Said a still bittered Funkyrae.

My sarcastic rebuttals will now commence. (fighting fire with fire and sarcasm with sarcasm)

That's right because I don't believe in history, oh wait, that's not right. I do believe in history, I also believe in questioning it. But the only history I believe we really need to talk about for the purposes of this debate are the historical claims of the Bible. right?

quote:

Twice you've dropped the whole thing only to come back in and pick an argument again.


I'm like a dog with a bone.

quote:

OK fine, you have your opinions and no matter how idiotic and moronic they are...


You really think my opinions are idiotic and moronic. I dare say that hurts.

quote:

considering you refuse to argue with any evidence or fact....


Please enlighten me, where am I missing fact and evidence?

quote:

you are entitled to them.


You don't need to tell me this. I know.

If you tire of this debate, why not go and see what's happening in the Nanny Mcphees Big Bang sequel rumourmill forum? You don't have to be here. Perhaps you could start a push for a Clash of the Hittites movie?

If however you would like to stay, I would be most honoured to continue discussing with you the deeper ramifications of a Noahs Ark movie.


Dirk Miggler (1)

quote:

I'm having visions of a farmer. Field of Dreams, "if you build it THEY will come" type vibe ! Could be cool !

Yes it could be cool and it could also be very uncool and religious propaganda, which in my opinion is not cool at all.

At this point let's review a definition of propaganda.

propaganda |ˌpräpəˈgandə|
noun
1 chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view : he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda.
the dissemination of such information as a political strategy : the party's leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary .
2 ( Propaganda) a committee of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church responsible for foreign missions, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV.
ORIGIN Italian, from modern Latin congregatio de propaganda fide ‘congregation for propagation of the faith’ ( see sense 2). Sense 1 dates from the early 20th cent.

I'm interested in the first meaning. lets analyse it shall we. information. Okay a movie is a source of information. agreed? everyone? can we agree on that? right!

Subsequently it goes on to say ...of a biased or misleading nature. This remains to be seen right? we don't know if it will be biased or misleading. Saavy? It certainly could be though.

Next part '...to promote or publicize a particular cause or point of view.'

Okay well here I will argue, and please target this argument in your future rebuttals. I will argue that simply by perpetuating this myth, fable, historical event and scientific claim (all of which it is to different people) You are validating it's value to the 40% of creationists in the USA who believe this was a true event. As such it is a step backwards for the honest scientific community who are struggling to popularize the true story of animal migration. THe consequences of this understanding or misunderstanding of the world around us are of paramount importance to how we understand the biodiversity of this planet which is threatened.

Yes, I agree the people who see it as pure myth may enjoy it, but as an Aronofsky film I don't believe it will be a family film. I may be wrong. Hold me to it by all means.

The next part of the number 1 definition of propaganda is the dissemination of such information as a political strategy.

Regardless of Aronofskys take on it, I believe that this is what it is, a political strategy. A political strategy in that it is perpetuating the popularisation of this myth that is specific to the three major religious cults. A myth of great importance to their understanding of the world and their cultural traditions understanding of the world. Meanwhile American native Indians view on this topic is silenced because they are a minority group. They are but one example that I use since I have previously used them to illustrate this point.

Yes, i know about the flood myths being everywhere but, i'll say it again, I don't believe that a universality of flood myths is relevant. I'm more interested in the animal migration aspect and the religious claims about it..

Okay now I'll review some of deviations rebuttals last night.

quote:

All I got was "THIS FILM SHOWS A BIBLICAL STORY IT'S PROPAGANDA", which is nonsense


That was one thread of the tapestry that has been my argument. It leaves out the validation of the social and religious groups beliefs and worldviews. This point is more important, and one that I don't believe you have the compassion to understand. I might be wrong, but it comes up a few times in your rebuttals so lets press on and see.

quote:

I have no idea what you mean, yes, only a finite number of countries actually tries to cater for every minority (maybe add Germany and the UK to that list, I kinda forgot them while I was posting).

This seems like very difficult information to verify. Are you sure you know so much about the cinematic output of all of these countries: Germany, U.K, Iran, et al.? Or do you simply watch and engage in popular films from these countries regularly?

It's a very nationalistic way of thinking and doesn't really account for our current globalised society. Hollywood itself is comprised of a lot of different people from different places. Take The Truman Show as an example. A seemingly Hollywood film due to it's production company. Yet it had an Australian director, a New Zealander writer, and a Canadian lead actor. Can you call it an american film? How do you qualify films in this way these days? I don't think you can. But What is certain is that Hollywood as an industry is markedly western. It is also comprised of a large Jewish population, behind the scenes and in front of the camera, It can casually produce a film that draws heavily from the Christian religion but any other religious source material simply wouldn't be used.

Tony Gatlif, I believe is a French filmmaker but his films span the borders of Europe and Africa as he presents films about minority groups including the Roma. He is another example of trans-national film-making.

quote:

According to the ones set here, i.e., films that deal with Jewish faith and religion. Something that deals with a political crisis or conflict wouldn't count.


Right so you're setting rules for this discussion/debate are you? That's interesting. Are there any other rules I need to know?

quote:

And clearly you missed the point. Nobody is saying Rushdie has a greater opinion than your friend from the slums, it's saying that people who live or lived there, who are from that region itself, were critical of the film and its plot. The example was to show of criticism to show that some people from India itself were not impressed by the film and not to override your friend's opinion. This. Was. Not. Just. From. Critics. And. Scholars.


I don't really feel the need to re-argue this point. I think it was quite clear what you said and what I said. Perhaps someone else could objectively analyse this thread of the debate and offer their fresh unbiased opinion. DazDaman don't bother, because you two are like Brokeback Mountain buddies.

quote:

Yeah, considering anyone who considers the story nothing but a myth will still think it is a myth afterwards. So nothing on Earth will be changed.


Nothing on Earth will be changed with the people who believe it is a myth. Right.

However, I'm not concerned about the people who think that Noah is a myth. I never said that this is a kind of propaganda that brainwashes people into believing in Noahs Ark. To make that claim is to entirely misunderstand propaganda, see the definition above and also to entirely misunderstand my argument.


So for your convenience here it is again.

40% of Americans believe in creationism. That the world is roughly 10 million years old and that we did not evolve from apes, but rather were created by a supernatural designer.

Here is a link that verifies that percentage and provides more information on this ridiculous and dangerous way of understanding the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Noahs Ark is a biblical myth/story/historical account (depending on how you want to interpret it personally I opt for the fourth namely a load-of-shit) from the bible.

Biblical literalists are people who take the bible literally. I.e Moses parted water, Jesus walked on water and turned water to wine, and possibly performed other magic tricks with an aquatic theme as it was apparently quite popular at the time.

Biblical literalists believe in creationism as it is stated in the Bible.

For more information on the Bible. Ricky Gervais explains it in basic terms here:

http://www.snotr.com/video/4351/Ricky_Gervais_-_The_Bible

A film like Noahs Ark, irregardless of how Aronofsky treats the material, as stated previously, further popularizes and validates the importance of this myth/story/historical event/ rubbish scientific explanation, in the realm of our shared western popular culture.

If you are of that 40% in the U.S.A or a creationist elsewhere, this will likely be a validation of your beliefs and their importance in our shared popular culture.

If you are agnostic, and you are interested in this myth and see the film, you are embracing its value and the value of the Judeo-Christian myths that permeate and dominate our shared popular culture.

If you are a minority group, with a different world-view and spiritual understanding, then you will continue to be marginalised.

If you are an non-theist you might recognise that the perpetuation of this ridiculous story serves only to block our collective understanding of evolution, animal migration and humanity's place in ecology, and our ecological responsibilities in the century ahead.

If like me you want to rise and meet the ecological challenges of this century then you see this literal belief in this story by people across the world as a block in the road to rising to this challenge.

quote:

That's because agnosticism has nothing to do with the position of belief but that of doubt, genius.

Do you have doubts about something? what are they? I'm earnestly interested.

quote:

Oh, and you are somewhat forced to be baptized here and it's somewhat expected by every member of the society from birth, you don't really have a choice.


That sux, I'm very much against that kind of religious pressure.

quote:

So Chad is the country that releases most films a year? No, it isn't.


I'm making a point that Chad is a country that has no cultural capital.

quote:

No, explain more on why it wasn't effective, Also, which version did you see?


It was a historical story. I don't know enough about this history. Perhaps Funkyrae could discuss what this film was about and whether it was historically accurate. He's a history guru.

Rebenectomy (1)

quote:

No, it was Moses who did that.


I think you're mistaken, you mean to say that you believe Moses did that because you take the stories in the bible literally.

I believe that neither Moses or Jesus performed those miracles, because there is no evidence for it and they are as far as we know scientifically impossible

(in reply to Rebenectomy)
Post #: 133
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 2:18:45 PM   
Funkyrae


Posts: 20362
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Just stick a pin in a map
I'm sure you're not that new to this whole internet thing and can work out exactly what we mean by troll. So, how's this for stating the obvious; drop this or find yourself on your first official warning. Three strikes and you're out.

_____________________________

That's me that is!


(in reply to Englebertnightingale)
Post #: 134
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 2:22:02 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54574
Joined: 1/10/2005
I think certainly at the end there you've missed the point on sarcasm.

I still fail to see why this qualifies as significantly different from any other work of fiction - those who believe will continue to believe, those who don't will continue not to. A film by Aranofsky is simply not going to change that. Get to crap like Braveheart and I might start listening - that seems to play into all manner of dodgy belief systems.

As an aside though - a troll, among other things, could easily be defined as someone who blithely tells a site Moderator to bog off somewhere else with a quite breathtaking air of entitlement. I think you've got fairly dogmatic views, the equal of many on the religious side, and you don't seem entirely open to accepting the argument of others (which, sadly, is a failing that many use as weapons against the rest of us atheists, pointing out the absolutism of closed minds) - you've been broadly civil however. We'd appreciate it stay that way.

Completely O/T - I agree with you on Jeremy Renner. So you're not all wrong.


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Englebertnightingale)
Post #: 135
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 2:22:25 PM   
Englebertnightingale


Posts: 128
Joined: 20/11/2011
Drop what exactly Funkyrae?

I have every right to express my views on a film in this forum.

If you are making a claim that I am breaching some kind of code, and you are asserting yourself as a moderator as you are so labelled, then please enlighten me by explaining what code of forum conduct I might be breaching.

(in reply to Funkyrae)
Post #: 136
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 2:23:36 PM   
Funkyrae


Posts: 20362
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Just stick a pin in a map
See Elab's post above.

_____________________________

That's me that is!


(in reply to Englebertnightingale)
Post #: 137
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 2:27:59 PM   
Englebertnightingale


Posts: 128
Joined: 20/11/2011
I've seen it. It doesn't answer my question. Could you so kindly direct me to perhaps a written source of this information or explain it yourself.

(in reply to Funkyrae)
Post #: 138
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 2:31:43 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
You could say that the mods have produced an executive decision. 

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Englebertnightingale)
Post #: 139
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 2:33:45 PM   
Englebertnightingale


Posts: 128
Joined: 20/11/2011
What do you mean? can you elaborate? What are the rules for this forum. Where are they? Or is it at the subjective opinion of the moderators?

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 140
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 2:40:07 PM   
Funkyrae


Posts: 20362
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Just stick a pin in a map
The rules are there in your inbox.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Englebertnightingale

Drop what exactly Funkyrae?

I have every right to express my views on a film in this forum.

If you are making a claim that I am breaching some kind of code, and you are asserting yourself as a moderator as you are so labelled, then please enlighten me by explaining what code of forum conduct I might be breaching.


You have the right to express your views on a film yes. However you're not, you could be seen as making offensive remarks towards those who do have a religious tendency on this forum, if it was so chosen to interpret it in that manner.

You've apologised at least twice (at least once to me) for your attitude. As was stated, apology accepted and moving on. You however refuse to move on and keep bringing the same thing back up. As was requested, enough is enough.

_____________________________

That's me that is!


(in reply to Englebertnightingale)
Post #: 141
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 3:14:54 PM   
Englebertnightingale


Posts: 128
Joined: 20/11/2011
quote:

you could be seen as making offensive remarks towards those who do have a religious tendency on this forum, if it was so chosen to interpret it in that manner.


That's very ambiguous, I only question the validity of claims. How about offensive remarks to someone of a non religious view? If it was so chosen to interpret it in that manner, could I report it to a moderator?

Ironically, after all this discussion about marginalization of minority groups in society, within this very forum, I am possibly being marginalized in the very same way.


Being called a troll is a direct insult and I've been called it by authoritarian moderators, I believe that is irresponsible. If anything, you should be setting an example in here.

Elab49

quote:

a troll, among other things, could easily be defined as someone who blithely tells a site Moderator to bog off somewhere else with a quite breathtaking air of entitlement.


Let's review that shall we.

quote:

If you tire of this debate, why not go and see what's happening in the Nanny Mcphees Big Bang sequel rumourmill forum? You don't have to be here. Perhaps you could start a push for a Clash of the Hittites movie?

If however you would like to stay, I would be most honoured to continue discussing with you the deeper ramifications of a Noahs Ark movie.


I used sarcasm that had been demonstrated by the moderators as appropriate discourse and behaviour in this forum. I made a suggestion that he leave. I stand by it. He doesn't have to read this thread. No-one does. Funkyrae modelled this type of sarcastic discourse as a moderator, I, as a ninja in training, followed the example he set.

If anything, if this is really an issue, then his role as moderator should be in question and perhaps a warning for a warning should be issued.

If I receive a warning for this type of comment then so to should the moderator who modelled it as acceptable forum etiquette.




(in reply to Funkyrae)
Post #: 142
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 3:25:51 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Oh this is so entertaining....I missed this sort of arguing, it reminds me of EP.

BUT WAIT GUYS HE HAS A POINT IN SOME AREAS

quote:

That was one thread of the tapestry that has been my argument. It leaves out the validation of the social and religious groups beliefs and worldviews. This point is more important, and one that I don't believe you have the compassion to understand. I might be wrong, but it comes up a few times in your rebuttals so lets press on and see.


I don't have the compassion to understand something as stupid as thinking that making a story about a biblical epic means validating it.

quote:

This seems like very difficult information to verify. Are you sure you know so much about the cinematic output of all of these countries: Germany, U.K, Iran, et al.? Or do you simply watch and engage in popular films from these countries regularly?


Yes, I do watch a good number of those countries films regularly. I'm actually unsure if I want include Serbia (or Yuogoslavia) since I only know of one Serbian (ex-Bosniak) director doing so, and of course, France.

OH MY GOD YOU ACTUALLY COULD BE PARTIALLY RIGHT IN THE NEXT TWO QOUTES
quote:

It's a very nationalistic way of thinking and doesn't really account for our current globalised society. Hollywood itself is comprised of a lot of different people from different places. Take The Truman Show as an example. A seemingly Hollywood film due to it's production company. Yet it had an Australian director, a New Zealander writer, and a Canadian lead actor. Can you call it an american film? How do you qualify films in this way these days? I don't think you can. But What is certain is that Hollywood as an industry is markedly western. It is also comprised of a large Jewish population, behind the scenes and in front of the camera, It can casually produce a film that draws heavily from the Christian religion but any other religious source material simply wouldn't be used.


That is indeed a complex question when it comes to the classification of the film's country (it reached a hilarious climax when two folks where arguing that Children of Men is not British and in a bigger scale when the Oscars couldn't choose if The White Ribbon was Austrian or German) so I'll give you this. HOWEVER, if the film's producers are American and the film is on the whole an American production (which it was), then yes, it is American and that it is how it is regarded. Oh, and all the characters in it are American.

However, no matter how mixed the production can be, it still is an American production unless it's producers aren't all coming from different countries, like Che for example.

Also, odd you choose A Peter Wier film, a Christian who tends to put Christian analogies and symbolism in his work, including The Truman Show. You must hate it as it validates the Christian religion.

quote:

Tony Gatlif, I believe is a French filmmaker but his films span the borders of Europe and Africa as he presents films about minority groups including the Roma. He is another example of trans-national film-making.


And the above Serbian (Emir Kusturica btw) who had Serbian Orthodox, Bosniaks and Romas in his films. He and Gatlif is still not the major norm. How many films do you see from Australia about the Aborigines, not many, though Australia tends to have films about other minorities but even with that, I've yet to see one about the Maltese immigrants living there.

Still, you indeed are right here, but what you are mentioning is still not what happens in the majority of films or how it operates in most countries. It just doesn't (even if African cinema is not a forte of mine, so it might happen there)

quote:

Right so you're setting rules for this discussion/debate are you? That's interesting. Are there any other rules I need to know?


No, I told you to find something that fit my criteria I first proposed, you found those and only one or two (not seen Homocide) fit.

quote:

I don't really feel the need to re-argue this point. I think it was quite clear what you said and what I said. Perhaps someone else could objectively analyse this thread of the debate and offer their fresh unbiased opinion. DazDaman don't bother, because you two are like Brokeback Mountain buddies.


OH YOU

quote:



Nothing on Earth will be changed with the people who believe it is a myth. Right.

However, I'm not concerned about the people who think that Noah is a myth. I never said that this is a kind of propaganda that brainwashes people into believing in Noahs Ark. To make that claim is to entirely misunderstand propaganda, see the definition above and also to entirely misunderstand my argument.


So for your convenience here it is again.

40% of Americans believe in creationism. That the world is roughly 10 million years old and that we did not evolve from apes, but rather were created by a supernatural designer.

Here is a link that verifies that percentage and provides more information on this ridiculous and dangerous way of understanding the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism


Oh God, you're paranoid.

quote:

Noahs Ark is a biblical myth/story/historical account (depending on how you want to interpret it personally I opt for the fourth namely a load-of-shit) from the bible.


Of course it's a load of shit for you, you don't have a friend who lived to see a Great Flood. Any other historical account or evidence is bullshit.

quote:

If you are agnostic, and you are interested in this myth and see the film, you are embracing its value and the value of the Judeo-Christian myths that permeate and dominate our shared popular culture.


Or liking a good story. I can't wait to see Immortals and validate the old defunct Greek mythology.

quote:

If you are an non-theist you might recognise that the perpetuation of this ridiculous story serves only to block our collective understanding of evolution, animal migration and humanity's place in ecology, and our ecological responsibilities in the century ahead.


Or see it as a fantasy and stop acting like a pretentious loon.

quote:

Do you have doubts about something? what are they? I'm earnestly interested.


Doubt about any position that claims that there is or isn't a supreme deity ( or the simplest thing, everything around us, etc...) since neither claim can be proven empirically.

quote:

That sux, I'm very much against that kind of religious pressure.


Indeed. It's quite rubbish.

quote:

I'm making a point that Chad is a country that has no cultural capital.


Unlike India.

quote:

It was a historical story. I don't know enough about this history. Perhaps Funkyrae could discuss what this film was about and whether it was historically accurate. He's a history guru.


That doesn't make any sense. Did you really fail to see the in-your-face subtext (sometimes considered historically incorrect, such as the representation of the Patriarch) it was claiming about religion?

< Message edited by Deviation -- 4/12/2011 3:28:07 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Englebertnightingale)
Post #: 143
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 3:37:27 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Ok, I'll stop now...

It's been fun.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 144
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 7:58:26 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair
I can see the Ban Hammer being unleashed.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 145
RE: Religious Propaganda - 4/12/2011 8:21:25 PM   
rich


Posts: 4926
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe
What the FUCK is all this shite

(in reply to Englebertnightingale)
Post #: 146
RE: Religious Propaganda - 5/12/2011 8:13:49 AM   
Heisenberg

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 7/8/2011
Now I like religious propaganda, but then I also like evolution, but which is better? There's only one way one to find out.....

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 147
RE: Religious Propaganda - 5/12/2011 11:56:46 AM   
Englebertnightingale


Posts: 128
Joined: 20/11/2011
quote:

What the FUCK is all this shite


perspectives on stuff.

< Message edited by Englebertnightingale -- 5/12/2011 11:57:20 AM >

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 148
RE: Religious Propaganda - 5/12/2011 11:58:23 AM   
DazDaMan


Posts: 10109
Joined: 8/9/2006
From: Penicuik - a right shithole
Bullshit.

_____________________________

You fucking fuckers are gonna do what I say or I'm going to stick my foot so far up your assholes you'll rue the day you crawled out of your mother's twat!

(in reply to Englebertnightingale)
Post #: 149
RE: Religious Propaganda - 5/12/2011 12:06:41 PM   
Timon


Posts: 14587
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol
Hey Engelbert, how you doing? Good weekend?


Anyway...

quote:


If you are an non-theist you might recognise that the perpetuation of this ridiculous story serves only to block our collective understanding of evolution, animal migration and humanity's place in ecology, and our ecological responsibilities in the century ahead.



No it doesn't. In the way that the Animals of Farthing Wood and/or Wind in the Willows prevents me from knowing how the Natural World works.

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to DazDaMan)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: Rebuttals Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.156