The Other "Why I'm better than everyone else" thread

[DeletedUser5669]

@Azkaban

I confess, I've never been able to take Red Dwarf seriously, but that may be because my brother loved it so much. That was always a surefire way to guarantee I'd dismiss something in our teen years. My first Doctor was Tom Baker, too, but I started midway through Tom Baker/Sarah Jane. When our PBS station got to the end of Tom, it recycled through Jon Pertwee again, so I got very confused when Sarah Jane showed up.

I'm bothered by people who seem to think starting with David Tennant is fine, that they can ignore everything that came before.

 

[DeletedUser7919]

I love British Comedy. Heck, I love all things British.

I've had people report my username as offensive before. They've said that "burning eden" implies I want to set fire to the perfect garden that God created. They've also said it proves I am in favor of the "fires of hell" burning down all that's good in the world. It's sad.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm bothered by people who seem to think starting with David Tennant is fine, that they can ignore everything that came before.

I had a really hard time with David's Doctor. I just couldn't get Barty Crouch Jr. out of my head.

I love British Comedy. Heck, I love all things British.

OMGs...Monty Python, Benny Hill, Blackadder, Are You Being Served, As Time Goes By, Keeping Up Appearances, Mother & Son, First (& Last) Of The Summer Wine, and so much more. And then, of course, are the Mysteries!

And...the first thing I thought of when I saw your name was William Shatner's Ashes Of Eden, which is #2 of my Top 5 favorite Star Trek novels.

 

[shimmerfly]

"things" that bother me
Containers that take dynamite to open
Tools that have a mind of their own and get lost just when you need them Or break
windows that get stuck
beets and rhutabega
loose door knobs
Gross public bathrooms
Technical wires
waste
but lately mostly beets even though I kind of enjoyed searching for the little boogers after they were gone

 

[DeletedUser]

@shimmerfly

Your post wins the Internet today.

 

[shimmerfly]

@shimmerfly

Your post wins the Internet today.

that was the easiest win yet on this game Thanks
do I get a beet or maybe a minute or three?

 

[DeletedUser]

that was the easiest win yet on this game Thanks
do I get a beet or maybe a minute or three?

If it were in my power, we'd all get minutes. And maybe a beet garden.

 

[DeletedUser8847]

If you think that's huge, wait till you get to Wood Elves or Sorcerers & Dragons....you're going to be stunned at how huge things are.......

Larger buildings than that.... aarrgg-- fortunatelly there is time to get more expansions before it

 

[DeletedUser8847]

My continue lose of eye sight bothers me

My lying big brother bothers me

Cleaning the apartment bothers me very much

 

[DeletedUser2768]

People who walk down the middle of a parking lot when they know you are right behind them in your car.

I get right up behind them and lay on my horn. Makes them jump about 10 feet in the air. Most of the time they move to one side or another after that.

 

[DeletedUser1524]

People who give limply handshakes. The only people I'd excuse are the elderly and the sick.

My first Doctor was Eccleston, but I did love 10. (I'm looking forward to Jodie, though!) I tried watching from the very beginning, but it's hard to find the episodes. When Netflix had them, it was only like 4 episodes per season. I stopped because I needed to watch the whole thing.

 

[Ashrem]

When Netflix had them, it was only like 4 episodes per season. I stopped because I needed to watch the whole thing.

In early years, the shows were serials (short and several together made a single episode), so it's possible that 4 episodes was an entire season.

 

[DeletedUser5669]

When Netflix had them, it was only like 4 episodes per season. I stopped because I needed to watch the whole thing.

In early years, the shows were serials (short and several together made a single episode), so it's possible that 4 episodes was an entire season.

@emwho It is literally impossible to watch all of Doctor Who because it began in an era when production companies weren't always saving all the film from television shows. Syndication was unheard of, and they didn't see any reason to keep the stuff. It had aired, it was over, let's move on. There are some among the earliest episodes that no longer exist except in the memories of people who saw them. That starts with William Hartnell in 1963 and continues into Patrick Troughton. I believe that all or almost all of Jon Pertwee is extant, and then going forward, we've reached the 70s when everything was being saved.

On the other hand, @Ashrem is absolutely right. An episode like Battlefield (Sylvester McCoy) from as late as 1989 is broken into 4 25 minute segments. On IMdB it shows them as separate episodes, but that's not how it's meant to be thought of. It was originally a serial meant for children, so the segments are short, and the number of segments per episode varied.

You will have to accept that not all the episodes even exist anymore, but another problem is that not all of the show is available in easily accessible formats. Forget streaming, not all of it is available on DVD. I'm not sure what the reason behind that is, I just know it's true. If you want the flavor of the early Doctor Who, watch what you can in whatever format you can find and accept that being a completist isn't really an option.

And to get back to the point of this thread, it bothers me immensely that there are shows and movies on which the music has been changed, often without much thought, because the correct rights for various formats were not purchased in advance and are either now not available or too expensive to be practical. Two I can think of right off the top of my head. The first two seasons of Supernatural have the wrong music in a lot of places on streaming because the rights weren't purchased for, say, "Bad Moon Rising." SPN fans will know why that's key at the changeover from Season 1 to Season 2. When Harry Met Sally had a key song removed and replaced with neutral music of a similar style, ruining a climactic moment in which the music was a third character.

 

[Ashrem]

@emwho It is literally impossible to watch all of Doctor Who because it began in an era when production companies weren't always saving all the film from television shows.

Another large issue for Black-and-white was in the early 80s when Silver prices went sky-high and millions of hours of black and white footage were treated with chemicals to dissolve out the silver which was then worth more than the film.

 

[DeletedUser5669]

Another large issue for Black-and-white was in the early 80s when Silver prices went sky-high and millions of hours of black and white footage were treated with chemicals to dissolve out the silver which was then worth more than the film.

I did not know that. Learn a new thing every day!

 

[DeletedUser]

People who don't read.
People who think rules don't apply to them.
People who climb fences into other people's yards, and then when they get attacked by the dog whose yard they're in, the 'vicious' dog pays with its life for the human's stupidity.
People who don't respect other people's boundaries.

 

[ajqtrz]

Narrow-minded people who use religion to hate, isolate, hurt, demean, and dismiss others. Hate the sin and love the sinner is beyond condescending because you can't possibly love someone when you want to see them stripped of their basic human rights. The LGBTQA community isn't ruining "marriage" for anyone. Straight folks did all that on their own and I AM a straight person. I've been married to my husband for 24 years this past July 24. I honestly doubt God cares WHO you love. He cares HOW you love. And if you are a kind, loving, decent, and caring person . . . I can't see him shoving you into hell all because you fell in love. I mean . . . we are all on the exact same journey in life. Some folks just take different roads to get there.

I have a shirt that says, "Don't judge people just because they sin differently than you." It provokes a lot of conversation when I wear it. I've had more than one person come at me with anger until I articulate my position. Several of them have given me a hand shake and thanked me for opening their minds a little bit more. I think open minds and acceptance of our differences would put a big old bandage on most of what's wrong with the world.

When one looks at condemnation from another person for actions and words they do or say, and then assumes the motivation is hated and narrow-mindedness, (which it certainly can be) all that happens is that you get two persons or groups hating each other. So unless a person declares that they actually "hate" the person or group addressed it's probably better to assume they have a reason for their disagreement over that person's or groups actions or words, and that their reason or reasons are well thought out.

Of course, if one cannot stop and give a listen to another person's point of view one has to wonder if the very narrow mindedness attributed to the other person or group. isn't also part of their own self. Usually, I think, we get in trouble by assuming the person we are speaking with can't possibly be coming from an intelligent and well reasoned point of view if they hold the position they espouse. This is the assumption they often bring to the table about you and I'm pretty certain that you don't like it a bit. So "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" religious or not.

In any case, it has been my experience that the more passionate the delivery of the message the less likely there is anything but passion supporting that message.....but since there might be, I do try to get the person to slow down and give me reasons for believing whatever it is they are espousing. Sometimes I've even surprised and learn a thing or two.

Finally, just because I can do so, the logic that says "love" or "falling in love" justifies whatever behaviors used in expressing that love, is a dangerous slope upon which to stand. The magic age of "18" is not magic. Thus, if a 26 year old woman "falls in love" with a 16 year old boy, and he with her, isn't the expression of their love just a much justified by the fact that they can't help who they fall in love with? Are you willing to say a minor (who has not reached the magic age of 18) is not capable of falling in love or should be denied the right to express that love? And what of a 14 and 26 combination? Or a 12 and 40? While I agree that those in the acronym laden realm of sexual preferences have a right to feel as they feel, how does one distinguish between attraction between those who have both magically passed the 18 year mark and those who have not, especially if only one is over that magic boundary? Of course some parts of the acronym are more acceptable to others than other parts. LGBTQA - LMNOP (for "pedophile" perhaps?) is a long winded way of saying that sexual attraction comes in all shapes and sizes. But it has been transformed into a way of saying that whatever sexual attraction you feel should be allowed to be expressed. If your (or my) discomfort with one or more of those letters, is only a measure of our emotional reaction, excluding one of the letters, including the "P" word, is just a matter of power politics (democracy in the raw) and there is no basis for condemning a person who condemns the letters in the soup you don't, or for them condemning you for your own proclivities as to that alphabet.

Just some thoughts. (I know it's a "wall of text" but ask yourself if it's repetitious and thus wastes time, of if it actually has a number of points requiring the space it takes.)

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

t's probably better to assume they have a reason for their disagreement over that person's or groups actions or words, and that their reason or reasons are well thought out.

Humans have proved repeatedly that isn't a reasonable assumption.

There is, of course, no magic age when our children are capable of making reasonable decisions, but it's impractical to have professionals assess every decision of every person to see whether they should be allowed to make it. we (as in society) have drawn certain lines where we have significant evidence that actions on one side or the other are more-likely or less-likely to result from informed consent and/or pose a threat to those involved. Virtually all arguments about "sin" come down to "My version of an unproven omnipotent overseer is more correct than your version." Paedophilia isn't about sin. It's about the dangers to the developing mind of putting them in situations they don't have sufficient experience and force of personality to contextualize safely. To use paedophilia and homosexuality as somehow being comparable to each other in terms of their danger to participants is the worst possible kind of trolling.

 

[ajqtrz]

Passive aggressive people.
Fools who think they are clever.
People who continue to believe ridiculous ideas no matter how much evidence proves otherwise.



I have never found Ashrem to be a bully.
No matter how much we may disagree in discussions.
But then I am not overly sensitive to hearing opposing views.

The actual percentage is 82,3473. Just thought I'd clarify. The only thing with a higher percentage of inaccuracy than Internet statistics are the miss quotes of Abraham Lincoln. He actually said,

"Four Score and seven years from now our children will bring forth on this continent a new cyber-Nation dedicated to the proposition that all information is created equal.

Now they will be engaged in a great conflict, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. They will meet on a great cyber-battle-field of that war. They will have come to dedicate many a google search to that field, as an acceptable resting place for made up the statistics, quotes and social media lives, so that that cyber-nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that they should do this.

But, in a larger sense, they can not dedicate—they can not consecrate—they can not hallow—that cyberspace. The brave men, women and creatures living and dead, real or imagined, who will live there in the chat rooms and dark net, will consecrated it, far above their poor power to add or detract. The world will long note, long remember and ever be confused by what is said there, and try as it might, it will never be able to forget what was published there. It will be, therefore those living then, rather than us, to be dedicated to the unfinished cyber-work which has, to that point, been so nobly advanced. It is for them to be dedicated to the great task remaining before them—that from those honored web-sites we may increase the devotion to social media and reliable and creative information for which others have given the a full measure of devotion—that they highly resolve that dead links shall not have died in vain—that this cyber-nation, under the auspices of their ISP's, shall have give birth to the freedom to make up whatever they wish — and that cyber-government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from cyber-space."

I just thought you'd like to know.

AJ

Humans have proved repeatedly that isn't a reasonable assumption.

There is, of course, no magic age when our children are capable of making reasonable decisions, but it's impractical to have professionals assess every decision of every person to see whether they should be allowed to make it. we (as in society) have drawn certain lines where we have significant evidence that actions on one side or the other are more-likely or less-likely to result from informed consent and/or pose a threat to those involved. Virtually all arguments about "sin" come down to "My version of an unproven omnipotent overseer is more correct than your version." Paedophilia isn't about sin. It's about the dangers to the developing mind of putting them in situations they don't have sufficient experience and force of personality to contextualize safely. To use paedophilia and homosexuality as somehow being comparable to each other in terms of their danger to participants is the worst possible kind of trolling.

Interesting response, since it attempts to label the post as 'trolling' at the same time it does provide a classical and well reasoned response. Equating paedophilia and homosexuality was not the intention, but pointing out the inherent problems of resting any argument on ones discomfort zone (as the argument actually did by arguing form the perspective that "falling in love" justifies the sexuality of the couple).

It's an interesting point of view for if you rest your case on "developing minds" they you have a significant problem. According to most evidence almost all people have their first sexual experience long before the age of 18. One does wonder if, therefore, we allow such behaviors we aren't, in fact, "damaging" everyone. If we really wished for "safety" we should restrict ALL sexual contact and forbid ALL of it until the person has a "sufficient experience and force of personality to contextualize safety." That we don't, I think, speaks volumes about why we accept the forms of sexuality with which we are comfortable and reject those as 'sinful' (any moral stance necessitates a category of "sin" by which a person "falls short" of some standard, so I'll keep the word), with whom we are uncomfortable.

In the end making a qualitative distinction on the basis of safety is a red-herring, and I don't believe you were trolling in making your point...You were just wrong. Sorry.

BTW, I do agree with you re the need for a person to be developed and mature enough to actually make an informed choice re their sexuality. Unfortunately we are in the minority as evidenced by the perfectly acceptable and even encouraged sexuality of those in high schools, most of whom have not crossed that magical line.

AJ

PS Isn't it nice to have a civil conversation?

 

[Ashrem]

I didn't label that post as trolling, merely the equating of relationships between people of the same sex to those between people of different ages. It's a frequently used tactic among those who use morality as the basis for imposing their preferences on others rather than basing them on our best understanding of what is good for society and the individual, and it didn't belong in the rest of your post.

There is no inherent problem in what I said. We know that the brains of human beings do not mature as quickly as the sexual part of our bodies. Our society is more complex than ever, and imposes greater intellectual and emotional demands on us than any society in history. Any sexual activity before emotional/intellectual maturity is potentially dangerous, but we are fighting around a billion years of evolution since the first exchange of DNA by compatible organisms. We know immature people shouldn't be having sex with each other, either. The issue is in convincing them of that. On the other hand, it is not too much to expect that a mature human will recognize that society is concerned about the effect they might have on developing children, therefore it is entirely reasonable to expect that adults will not pursue an emotional relationship with a child (or one that the child might perceive as emotional because of their lack of experience)

In addition, we know that when a more mature person and a less mature person have a relationship of any kind (sexual or not) there is greater possibility of manipulation that the less mature individual does not recognize and understand. They lack some of the tools that would allow them to protect themselves from the actions of others That makes it perfectly reasonable in an open and educated society to place legal restrictions on the interactions of those below the chosen age as much as we can.