>> One of the things I look for is WHY is this guy evil?
>
> Don't ask that, because we all know but fear the answer.
>
> You see it in the daily political discussions. Everywhere they shout: We
> must fight against "terrorism"!
>
> But nearly no-one ask: Why do young men get so despaired in their lives,
> that they bomb themselves away? Why are they so disappointed about our
> world, about their future in this world that they hope for salvation in
> a promised heaven?

This is something I've never figured out.

It's apparently no secret that the Muslims want us dead. But I haven't 
got the vaguest idea *why*.

(And of course, "the Muslims want us dead" is such a wild exaggeration 
that nobody should ever take such utter nonsense seriously.)

The best I can come up with is "somebody out there is really good at 
convincing impressionable young people to kill themselves in a way which 
they find profitable". Which isn't an especially convincing argument...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> And absolutely nobody dies.

Kids' movies are exempt from the rule (mostly, at least.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 04:08:53 -0500, Warp wrote:

> > In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
> > are not murderers.

> [Spoiler warning:  If you haven't watched Man of Steel and don't want to 
> know how it ends, don't read any further]

> That was one of the things about Man of Steel that was disappointing.  

Well, at least they set it up so that clearly Superman didn't want to
kill him but had no other choice, and it caused him great pain.

I still disagree with the decision, though. Why can't they just follow
the principle in the comics? Bad guys are punished, not murdered. If for
no other reason, then for a pragmatic one: You can use the same badass
villain in a sequel, bringing more money in. If anybody, producers should
know this.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 04:30 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> And absolutely nobody dies.
>
> Kids' movies are exempt from the rule (mostly, at least.)

One could argue that Megamind is more than just a mere kids' movie.

On the other hand, The Incredibles is a film of a similar style, and 
actually a *hell* of a lot of people die in that... (Including the bad 
guy, predictably.)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 11:22:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/12/2013 3:10 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Spoiler alerts below for Breaking Bad (read no further if you don't
>> know how it ends).
>>
>>
> Or if you live in a media vacuum. :-)

Well, some people do manage to avoid spoilers for a while, so I thought 
I'd be courteous. ;)

>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:23:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> I've given up going to the movies and watching them on TV.
>>> I've just watched a play about Kenneth Williams. A very troubled man,
>>> indeed. There were no goodies nor baddies and it was a difficult
>>> watch.
>>> Seeing how hard and sad life was for one of my childhood heroes.
>>
>> Theater itself probably does have more complexity in its storytelling,
>> that's for sure.
>>
>>
> Sorry, it was a TV play. Every now and again a drama budget is spent on
> drama.

Well, yeah, but even still - the development process is similar to actual 
theatre productions.

>>> It got good reviews but I knew that he would die in the end. Even in
>>> American book, so my wife tells me. The character that does something
>>> bad has got to pay for it.
>>
>> Watching the story, I wasn't so sure - Walt didn't really *pay* for his
>> crimes, in the end, his death was a bit more of an easy way out.  It
>> wasn't a "fair" punishment, and it wasn't clear how they were going to
>> wrap it up.  Having it be an accident as a result of his own hubris had
>> kind of a poetic justice to it, but it was far from the punishment he
>> deserved.
>>
>>
> (How to put this without sounding overly critical, or personal?)
> It is that attitude, the one that expects people (exclude politicians)
> to pay for their wrong doings, to the N th. degree, that disturbs me.
> It is reflected in American literature and films. Which is where I came
> in.

No, not taking it personally at all - over here, there is a rather strong 
belief that people get the punishments they deserve.  Which is odd, 
because just as with Walt in BB, it's rarely the case.  Justice wouldn't 
have been death, it would've been a long time in prison, knowing his 
family hated him.

But don't forget that we don't expect the wealthy to pay for their 
misdeeds either.  We call people who get to a position of wealth and 
power who get away with stuff "successful".  Makes me sick.

>>> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
>>> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>>
>> Depends on whether we're talking about the subject as a singular object
>> or not. ;)
>>
>>
> It is a collective noun.
> The different branches are singular.

Exactly what I was saying.  One might be talking about a singular "math 
branch."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:57:29 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/12/2013 12:33 AM, Doctor John wrote:
>> On 23/12/2013 00:23, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>> Noy you know how we feel when we hear SF called Sci Fi. And while I am
>>> on the subject. It is MATHS not math. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Incidentally, are you going to stop him wearing suspenders and a vest?
>> :-D
>>
>> John
>>
>>
> I'm not. I don't want to think of Jim wearing his waistcoat with his
> kecks around his ankles. Let him keep his dignity and his braces. :-D

Makes a note of another tool to punish Stephen with. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 12:59:59 +0100, Lars R. wrote:

> Why do young men get so despaired in their lives,
> that they bomb themselves away?

That's an easy answer, unfortunately.  They're malleable, disaffected, 
and highly suggestible, and they are told half-truths laced with 
falsehoods and are misled into doing terrible things by people who 
present themselves as if they care for them, but they really don't.

Just read some about Maajid Nawaz, because he talks about his own 
radicalization and how he was recruited.  He got out, and now is working 
to provide a counter-message to what got him involved in being a 
terrorist.  It's interesting stuff.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:27:13 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> It's apparently no secret that the Muslims want us dead. But I haven't
> got the vaguest idea *why*.
> 
> (And of course, "the Muslims want us dead" is such a wild exaggeration
> that nobody should ever take such utter nonsense seriously.)

Especially since it's only a small fraction of them, not *all* of them.

And while you say it's such a wild exaggeration, it's important to point 
out that it's a very small minority who do.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 11:34:11 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 04:08:53 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > In comics the bad guy basically never dies. It makes sense: The heros
>> > are not murderers.
> 
>> [Spoiler warning:  If you haven't watched Man of Steel and don't want
>> to know how it ends, don't read any further]
> 
>> That was one of the things about Man of Steel that was disappointing.
> 
> Well, at least they set it up so that clearly Superman didn't want to
> kill him but had no other choice, and it caused him great pain.

It didn't come across that way to me at the time, but I can see your 
point and how the scene also plays that way.

> I still disagree with the decision, though. Why can't they just follow
> the principle in the comics? Bad guys are punished, not murdered. If for
> no other reason, then for a pragmatic one: You can use the same badass
> villain in a sequel, bringing more money in. If anybody, producers
> should know this.

Well, yes, exactly.  My wife and I had a discussion about this (she's a 
big comics geek), and the thing about Superman is that he's supposed to 
be the embodiment of "American Exceptionalism" - a high standard that we 
strive to achieve.  By murdering Zod, though, Nolan lowered the bar for 
that standard.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 6:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, yes, exactly.  My wife and I had a discussion about this (she's a
> big comics geek), and the thing about Superman is that he's supposed to
> be the embodiment of "American Exceptionalism" - a high standard that we
> strive to achieve.  By murdering Zod, though, Nolan lowered the bar for
> that standard.

IIRC from my youth. Superman had never killed anyone. He always 
delivered them to Justice.
Bad show, that man.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message