Jim Henderson wrote:
> Hey, everyone's entitled to an opinion.  But I'll give those who are 
> actually handicapped taking something like the premise behind this film a 
> bit more credence when they stand out and say that the premise of the 
> film is flawed because it makes the *assumption* (and therein lies the 
> problem) that all people who are handicapped *want* to be "made whole" 
> and feel inferior to fully-abled people.
> 
> The message that is being received by some in that community is "if 
> you're handicapped, you're not a whole person" - and if I were 
> handicapped, I'd find that suggestion offensive as well.
> 
> Jim

My point though is, that may be the "percieved" message to some people, 
not what is at all intended. As with Warps example of the deaf kid, you 
can get people who just flat out can't see past their own position on a 
matter, and presume that there is a message that isn't there. Mind, I 
still haven't seen it yet, so can't say for sure, but neither have the 
people **making** the claim. As such I am highly skeptical that this is 
an accurate portrayal of what the film intends, never mind does, 
suggest, except in the minds of someone over sensitive of the issue. It 
sounds too much like the ridiculous gibberish you got from the barely 
recognizable adaption of "The Golden Compass", by just about everyone 
with some sort of imaginary chip on their shoulder, none of whom had 
read the book, and all of whom thought they could pronounce about the 
content of a movie that wasn't even showing in theaters yet, based on 
what they *imagined* the book said, sight unseen.

In other words, I have seen, and too often now expect, reactionary 
behavior, not clear arguments, from people that have no way of knowing, 
since they couldn't have possibly seen anything suggesting what they 
claim, and refuse to see the movie, so don't know what it actually does 
say/suggest. People do irrational things when they *think* something is 
attacking something they care about, and they will often do so in the 
complete absence of information. And, unfortunately, some people make 
the "disabled community", and their particular hangups on some things, 
almost religious in intensity and reactionary behavior.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> I was just about to make that same observation about my piano playing.  Ever
> looked at your hands while playing?  They look and feel like alive critters,
> detached from yourself, executing their own, obscure jig.

More importantly, get stuck half way through and you now have a problem, 
since you remember where to move your fingers to next, but not where 
they're supposed to start from. o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:25:03 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>  You're legs remember how to walk

Until you break one, anyways.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:17:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> My point though is, that may be the "percieved" message to some people,
> not what is at all intended. 

That's the problem in a lot of cases - it's not intended, it's not 
thought about at all, though it should be.

> As with Warps example of the deaf kid, you
> can get people who just flat out can't see past their own position on a
> matter, and presume that there is a message that isn't there. 

Most people can't see past their own position.  Or are unwilling to, 
because removing yourself from your own frame of reference requires 
effort and a willingness to say "I might be wrong about this".  People 
are generally stubborn about things like this and reject a view that 
isn't their own because it isn't their own - and we all know that our own 
views are the only thing that matters, right?

> Mind, I
> still haven't seen it yet, so can't say for sure, but neither have the
> people **making** the claim. As such I am highly skeptical that this is
> an accurate portrayal of what the film intends, never mind does,
> suggest, except in the minds of someone over sensitive of the issue. It
> sounds too much like the ridiculous gibberish you got from the barely
> recognizable adaption of "The Golden Compass", by just about everyone
> with some sort of imaginary chip on their shoulder, none of whom had
> read the book, and all of whom thought they could pronounce about the
> content of a movie that wasn't even showing in theaters yet, based on
> what they *imagined* the book said, sight unseen.

Well, yeah, that's also why I'm reserving judgment, because you can't 
base an opinion about a film on what's in a 3-minute trailer.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:53:18 -0500, Warp wrote:

>  I don't think anybody *wants* to be
> handicapped.

People who are handicapped and have learned to deal with it and lead what 
by their own measure is a normal life are pretty amazing; nobody wants to 
be unable to do things they want to, sure - but also many people who do 
have permanent handicaps do not want to be treated differently or told 
that they're not "normal".  That reminder is quite painful for some, 
because it focuses on what they *can't* do (or more often, on what abled 
people think they can't do) rather than what they *can*.

That's the problem some of the people I know in that community have with 
it - the idea that it focuses on what the injured soldiers can't do and 
that they couldn't possibly lead a fulfilling life without being made 
"whole".  Again, based on a 3-minute trailer, so I'm reserving judgment 
until I've had a chance to see it, but I can understand why it might piss 
some people off.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:17:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> My point though is, that may be the "percieved" message to some people,
>> not what is at all intended. 
> 
> That's the problem in a lot of cases - it's not intended, it's not 
> thought about at all, though it should be.
> 
I am sorry, but.. Why? Are you seriously telling me that every person 
making **any** kind of film needs to put in some character of reference 
that side steps offending some group of people, based solely on the fact 
that they *might* be offending by it? That's completely ridiculous, and 
if you think about it, you know it is. No one would claim that you 
should, for example, make a movie like Braveheart, in which some of the 
British where not total assholes with clear intent to do harm to the 
Scotsmen, just because some English person might take offense at it. 
Claiming that you have to be "oh so terribly careful to not 
unintentionally imply to disabled people that *some* disabled people 
might actually care about what they *can't* do, isn't much different. 
Its not about them, its about the character in the bloody movie.


>> As with Warps example of the deaf kid, you
>> can get people who just flat out can't see past their own position on a
>> matter, and presume that there is a message that isn't there. 
> 
> Most people can't see past their own position.  Or are unwilling to, 
> because removing yourself from your own frame of reference requires 
> effort and a willingness to say "I might be wrong about this".  People 
> are generally stubborn about things like this and reject a view that 
> isn't their own because it isn't their own - and we all know that our own 
> views are the only thing that matters, right?
> 
Rarely. But then, my "views" include the idea that any good idea should 
be considered, bad ideas may be as much poor execution, or lack of 
thought, than truly bad, and that no view lacks *all* merit, even if the 
only merit is to show that there are ideas that mesh *very badly* with 
what most people recognize as rational, and understanding why is critica 
in understanding, also, why people think what *is* rational is rational.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 
> That's what I do to remember numbers. Say them out loud so I can hear
> them. That way there are two input paths ;)
> 

And one output path, meaning you need to process and cache them while
you're saying them.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> That's what I do to remember numbers. Say them out loud so I can hear
>> them. That way there are two input paths ;)
>>
> 
> And one output path, meaning you need to process and cache them while
> you're saying them.
> 

That's easy :)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 
> That's easy :)
> 

Well yes, I just tried to point out that it also has it's work in
remembering better.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:45:57 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:17:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 
>>> My point though is, that may be the "percieved" message to some
>>> people, not what is at all intended.
>> 
>> That's the problem in a lot of cases - it's not intended, it's not
>> thought about at all, though it should be.
>> 
> I am sorry, but.. Why? Are you seriously telling me that every person
> making **any** kind of film needs to put in some character of reference
> that side steps offending some group of people, based solely on the fact
> that they *might* be offending by it? 

No, but having more diversity in films makes the films generally more 
interesting, for one thing.  Using stereotypes and characters based on 
stereotypes generally makes films less rich and less interesting to many 
people.

> That's completely ridiculous, and
> if you think about it, you know it is. No one would claim that you
> should, for example, make a movie like Braveheart, in which some of the
> British where not total assholes with clear intent to do harm to the
> Scotsmen, just because some English person might take offense at it.

We're not talking about historical films (or historical fiction, for that 
matter) where events and specific personas are integral to the films.

At least I don't *think* anyone's claiming Avatar has any basis in 
reality.

> Claiming that you have to be "oh so terribly careful to not
> unintentionally imply to disabled people that *some* disabled people
> might actually care about what they *can't* do, isn't much different.
> Its not about them, its about the character in the bloody movie.

Um, no, if you start painting with a broad brush, then you're going to 
have a problem.  That's the problem.  You generally don't find 30's 
cartoons on the air either, even ones that exist - partly because the 
stereotypes are considered inappropriate (in fact, I just watched some 
old Looney Toons cartoons dating from the 30s and 40s, and the disc 
actually included a disclaimer to that effect, much to my surprise).

>>> As with Warps example of the deaf kid, you can get people who just
>>> flat out can't see past their own position on a matter, and presume
>>> that there is a message that isn't there.
>> 
>> Most people can't see past their own position.  Or are unwilling to,
>> because removing yourself from your own frame of reference requires
>> effort and a willingness to say "I might be wrong about this".  People
>> are generally stubborn about things like this and reject a view that
>> isn't their own because it isn't their own - and we all know that our
>> own views are the only thing that matters, right?
>> 
> Rarely. But then, my "views" include the idea that any good idea should
> be considered, bad ideas may be as much poor execution, or lack of
> thought, than truly bad, and that no view lacks *all* merit, even if the
> only merit is to show that there are ideas that mesh *very badly* with
> what most people recognize as rational, and understanding why is critica
> in understanding, also, why people think what *is* rational is rational.

Oh, sure, and I'm not saying that it's been done intentionally; things 
like this can be done unintentionally, and when someone raises awareness 
that it has been done (or may have been done), the response I expect (in 
general) is "gee, we didn't think of that - thank you for helping me 
understand" - because as a general rule, offending audiences is not a 
good way to bring in more money - and that IS what the film industry is 
trying to do.

Jim

Post a reply to this message