MovieChat Forums > Geff > Replies
Geff's Replies
lines into one really messy cramped film.
They could have done a separate entire movie about Rey's training. There certainly is enough content there. They could have developed the island more (more than a two-minute-montage), luke could have passed on jedi knowledge. Rey could have participated in the Jedi temple trial.
They could have done a separate entire movie about the sith and snoke. Anyone who knows about the sith rule of two already anticipated that in order for Rey to be a potential sith apprentice one person has to die, either Rey, Snoke or Kylo. Whenever there is a new candidate for a sith apprentice either the master kills the apprentice outright or the apprentice kills the master or the new candidate is killed. This competition ensures that only the most powerful master and apprentice are in power. It's a kind of darwinism.
They could have done a separate entire movie about the dictatorship of the Vice Admiral Holdo (pink haired lady) following the power vacuum caused by Leia's coma, and the ensuing coup by Poe.
They could have done a seperate entire movie about the mission to find the codebreaker. They could have developed the planet and the characters more and could have shown the wage gap and the oppression of the proletariat in more detail. The mission to free the proletariat and seize the means of production could have been a more well organized one instead of a willy-nilly spur of the moment activity. Where is all the security at the stables!?
They could have done a seperate entire movie about the events at the refuge island. How did the cannon get down there so fast? They could have shown ongoing war between the rebels and the new order on the planet culminating in the final plot device of the cannon breaking through rebel wall and the clash with luke's illusion and the fleeing of the rebels. All of these events could easily take up an entire movie and give you adequate time to develop the characters in the rebellion.
Instead they chose to mash all these disparate themes and plot
Source?
Schools don't make you read Shakespeare anymore?My schools certainly payed attention to Shakespeare when I was young. He was the most read author/playwright. Has it changed?
Star Trek has always been devoted to showing the better side of humanity. It has always been devoted to showing that humanity can get out of their habits of greed, bigotry and war. While "multiculturalism" should not be a shield against scrutiny, because certainly there are things to scrutinize in Star Trek: Discovery. "Multiculturalism" should not be the source of scrutiny.
from it, as I or any reasonable non-stupid person would do. So why deprive a person of the opportunity to learn especially if you have the capacity to provide instruction via. correction.
I am a non-native English speaker. I am well aware of the disposition of not knowing the correct usages of words. I have never responded to language instruction in a combative manner. Ever. If I have the opportunity to pass on the information that I have acquired, I'm happy to take that opportunity. I will continue to do so at every opportunity.
the ideas presented by the communicator.
So in correcting the misuse of the word, my goals are incredibly altruistic. I want the reader to avoid future errors of a similar vain so that other people are able to communicate with them easily and they themselves are able to communicate more effectively. This makes it all the more disconcerting that my remark which is meant to provide instruction, the most altruistic of motives, is regarded as some manner of affront to the reader's intelligence.
Now, there was an expectation of this manner of response. As I said, "I anticipated a combative response". But, why would I expect this if my goals are pure? The reason is as I mentioned, "You can tell a lot about a person's character by the words they choose to use, or misuse". The author did not seem to me to be a non-native speaker, and yet he misused a word that is really fundamental to the language and failed to follow the simple rules of the language in regard to this word. What would lead someone to such a demonstrably inept failing you ask. Simple. Being of a character that has an adverse reaction to instruction, or having a combative reaction to being given instruction rather than using the instruction as a learning opportunity can make a person STUPID. Having the notion that instructors are being self-serving or their instructions are being used as an affront to your intelligence can only serve to further your stupidity. So, the "combative response" to instruction is in keeping with the pattern of stupidity that the author had displayed prior, and is therefore completely expected. So, why would I give instruction if I know they fall on deaf (stupid) ears? I will not bypass the opportunity to give instruction and improve someone's mastery of the English language because of the simple suspicion that he is stupid. And, it was a suspicion by all means, I didn't know with certainty that the author was stupid. Maybe he could have used the instruction in order to learn fr
Again, you seem to know a lot about other people's intentionality and motivations in spite of little other evidence besides some form of text based psychoanalysis. This practice might itself be considered what you call "pseudointellectual", as your use of the word psedointellectual seems to be more broad that the broadest definition of the word ever put forth.
I crave praise and admiration "therefore I put forward my point, whatever my point is". I guess by this definition anyone moving their mouth (or in this case expressing themselves textually) in order to communicate a "point" is craving praise and admiration.
Since you seem to have difficulty garnering the "point"s of people's remarks, let me elucidate it for you (although, I fear it is pointless): My original "point" was to make a correction to someone's misuse of a word. In this case, conflating the word "Cause", which is a noun, with the word "because" which is conjunction (or occasionally a preposition). The word "Cause" should never be used as a conjunction. If words are used incorrectly in this manner, the reader/listener has to devote more brain processing power in order to interpret the communicator's motives. This process would be much simpler and less time consuming if the communicator uses words as they were intended to be used by the users of that specific language. Or, the users of a specific language are expected the follow the agreed upon rules of that language in order to facilitate fluidity of communication.
Now, ofcourse there are non-native speakers who often misuse words. Correcting their mistakes is vastly important because otherwise they will continue misusing the words and never learn the proper uses of words. This would make discourse with that individual incredibly tiresome because the recipent of the words would have to devote an inordinate amount of cognitive resources to interpretting the fundamental language rather than focusing on what's really important, the contents, or th
You seem to know a lot about other people's IQ and what they think of their own IQ. Have you considered the possibility that people may use words for the singular purpose of communicating ideas rather than having the intention of putting forward into the world a numerical value that is supposed to measure a man-made concept called intelligence.
I know it's a bizarre notion that language can be used for something other than showing one's IQ. But, consider the possibility for a moment. Use your imagination, if you can.
I gave my response on the reddit thread: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/comments/69vp0j/the_wailing_2016_comprehensive_analysis_and/dli2okd/[/url]
"pretentious"
I've detected a philistine.
Sad to see all these nuclear weapons being wasted. We should drop a few in the Middle East and Russia while we are at it. If we drop some in Africa that will surely end their AIDs epidemic.
Maybe we should drop a few in West Virginia so that there are fewer unemployed coal workers. It would reduce the country's unemployment rate for sure.
Yes...
That note is the same note that Schmidt gave Sloane when he was trying to recruit her to Peterson Wyatt (when they originally met).
Earlier, we only saw the part that said "A conviction lobbyist can't only believe in her ability to win".
In the end we see the opposite side in the same handwriting, suggesting that Sloane was not offered any restitution for her services at Peterson Wyatt. She did it for herself.
Your perception of whether or not I provoked a combative response hinges on your perception of the goal of my comment.
If you perceive that the goal of the comment is to damage one's ego, then yes, your thesis is correct, I provoked a combative response.
If you perceive that the goal of the comment is to impart instruction and knowledge, then your thesis is incorrect.
I concede that one can instruct and simultaneously hurt another's ego, especially if the instruction clarifies a faulty belief in the listener and encourages the listener to abandon that belief. However, I do not concede that one should be combative and come to the defense of a faulty belief system just in order to defend his or her ego. This behavior is not conducive to learning.
Hypothesis 1: "Natural selection occurred over millennia to slowly give organisms traits that are useful for survival."
Hypothesis 2: "God created all organisms."
Hypothesis 1 is supported by converging evidence from a large number of scientific fields. (Supported Hypothesis 1 graduated to a Theory, but to avoid confusion I'll continue to call it a hypothesis)
Hypothesis 2 is not supported by any evidence.
Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is "more true" than Hypothesis 2. Infact, Hypothesis 2 directly contradicts Hypothesis 1 so both cannot be true simultaneously. They are competing hypotheses.
In a hypothetical scenario: If some scientists somehow uncover a large amount of evidence in support of Hypothesis 2, all scientists would abandon Hypothesis 1 in favor of Hypothesis 2.
---
I'm not discussing "group bias". I'm aware of it. That's a different topic.
I meant "The scientific method does [b]not[/b] show that something is true."
I mistyped, I edited it soon afterwards. Read the next paragraph about "more true"
---
We have no more disagreements.
I have faith in the scientific method until a better method presents itself. Show me that your method is a better method, and I'll be happy to abandon the scientific method.
The scientific method does not show that something is true.
The scientific method is the best way to filter out what is "more true" than the alternative. A hypothesis that has been supported over and over again by evidence and has withstood multiple experimental tests from a wide variety of scientific fields is "more true" than a hypothesis that has not withstood any experimental tests.
What is "reasonable" is subjective. I could say that it is reasonable to analyze a research paper, look at what methodology and tests the researcher used, and come to the determination that the the paper's results are accurate. You could very well consider this to be unreasonable.
I could say it is reasonable to employ the aid of a sample of people to come to a determination of whether or not the spider is real. You could very well determine that it's more reasonable to just trust your senses.
I could say it is reasonable to trust some science professors. You could say that it is unreasonable.
Your definition of reasonableness is asynchronous with my opinion about reasonableness. They are subjective opinions.
Looks like you are advocating blind faith in your perception because nobody can prove or disprove your perception.