MovieChat Forums > MavKilledGoose > Replies
MavKilledGoose's Replies
I don't see why it should be surprising if poor people are more likely to procreate than rich people. We're in an evolutionarily novel environment that has been shaped by culture, which moves far more rapidly than natural selection. Men with more sexual partners are less likely to have children than men with the fewest partners (above zero). People who are highly religious and poorly educated tend to have a lot of kids. Education should have a skull and crossbones when it comes to passing along one's genes.
Your non-replies are instructive. I'm not sure who you think you're fooling. It's nice you've abandoned the pretense of an argument for weak insults. This has been fun.
...
If they weren't, then criminals would still be using guns... but they're not. They resort to substitutes. All other things being equal, knives are less deadly than guns, so it's a win. The overall level of violence is down. The big boy purpose of laws is not to eliminate crime, but to reduce it.
Re: Illinois vs. Indiana
A profoundly stupid straw man. You're conflating a vector with a monocausal explanation. Do you think the reason Texas has a lot of illegal immigrants is because they have a border wall and agents, and the reason Wyoming does not is because they lack those things? In terms of violence/organized crime, there ARE other factors. A big one is population density (and the things that come with it, like organized crime).
Re: CDC
You cite "Bureau of Crime and Labor" in your copy/pastah. I can find no Bureau of Crime and Labor. You also suggest the findings are from the CDC. This is unlikely. It appears some similar stat had been cited or linked by the CDC at one point, but it was removed, in all likelihood because it's bogus research for the reasons I mentioned above. Here's a link you'll find favorable: https://crpa.org/news/blogs/cdc-hiding-the-truth-on-defensive-gun-use/
You did say something correct when you mentioned "lack of solid data." It's almost certainly not due to year-to-year variability in data. The wide range because it's a bogus methodology that one cannot place any confidence in.
"What? Go ahead. Show me the 'controlled data' of whites being as violent."
That is not what I claimed. Please read for comprehension. I said gun availability matters, which is why you can compare whites with high rates of gun availability to whites with low gun availability, and discover the former is higher. I gave another example comparing Black populations. You dumb racists are so exhausting. Just look into your malevolent soul: Why do you think Southern states (and racist non-Southern states) prevented Blacks from getting guns? If you think guns don't make a difference, then you wouldn't care if Black people are armed. Speaking of being armed...
Re: Blades, blunt objects etc. vs. Guns
Yes, people can be killed umpteen different ways. And yet, firearms are one of the most effective. Why do gun rights actvists prefer guns on their nightstand to a brick? If you have a 10-year old, does he have access to a baseball bat? Golf club? A large rock in the backyard? Kitchenware? So there's no difference than if he could get his hands on Glock as he pleases?
One of the more retarded arguments I'll see is people who say that after a country like Australia imposes strict laws against firearms is someone who says there's a jump in knife crime. That shows gun laws are working...
Agreed. Sorkin's basically full of shit. In Sports Night he has a lead character say something along the lines that he's ambitious for the reason all men are ambitious -- to impress a woman. Social Network is more about Sorkin's view of what drives young men than what actually drove Mark Zuckerberg, so his comments about this unnamed studio executive are likely self-righteous lies.
"Trump winning in 2016 proved that all republicans and dems are the washington elites."
This sounds like a non-sequitur. Claiming all Republicans and Democrats are Washington "elites" is one thing and relatively meaningless, but it's quite another to say Trump's 2016 win "proves" it. Waiting until an election year to impeach makes sense. Trump waited until an election year to bribe Ukraine with taxpayer money to launch a phony investigation into his leading political rival (and the one who happened to beat him). How is the "deep state" going to stop Trump from winning again? The deep state refers to bureaucrats who run the federal government. They don't run elections, which are conducted by the states.
Might want more tinfoil to protect your balls from the Obama mind-rays.
You seem to think you have something resembling a compelling argument. What's your sample size for what these dictators have done while Biden has been in office? Putin invaded Ukraine -- something that had been building for decades. During Trump's term, separatists in Eastern Ukraine were making war. Yemen was battling Saudi Arabia and civil war in Syria raged. Peace did not fall over the world during Trump's tenure.
It's funny how Biden is simultaneously weak, a dementia patient, and a dictator. Not that Trumpists have a coherent worldview, or that they care that Trump self-describes as "very strong" and seems to get along well with actual dictators. In 2016, Marco Rubio called Trump a wannabe strongman who despised the rule of law. Rubio endorsed Trump ahead of the Iowa caucus, which seems to show the real corruption of Washington elites. It was the same story for Ted Cruz. Yet the people MAGAtards despise are Washington elites who have consistently opposed Trump. Even DeStantis has recently complained people who "kiss the ring," something he will almost certainly do shortly.
Some right-wing jackwad here could definitely shoot up children at a nearby elementary school.
Yeah, it's not like a certain North Korean dictator called him "dotard." I know, I know, later they "fell in love." It's funny Trump-cultists think they have some kind of argument here with the respect/allyship of countries like Russia and China. That runs both ways: Trump respects those countries and leaders more than western liberal democracies.
Republicans used to be fond of a heuristic, "I shall support the candidate our geopolitical rivals like the least." The most ardent supporters are not voting Republican; they're voting Trump.
Yeah, OK, even if he loses he wins. Still, the bet is that the election will be canceled. This means that if people vote and Democrats cheat so Trump loses, or they cheat and dear leader still manages to win, then you lose the bet and must end your account because the election was still held.
"Also if Trumps wins..."
This sounds suspiciously retarded. You just bet that it would be canceled, so how is Trump going to win? If you want to believe there's a 50%+ that it's canceled, but in the event it's not canceled AND Trump wins, THEN Democrats will claim it's stolen, fine. But that's extraneous to the conditions of the bet. I'm sure people on both sides will be inclined to claim it was stolen, especially Cheeto Von Tweeto. Trump infamously had a complete meltdown in 2020 along with his cult. This is about a canceled election.
"I bet the elections are cancelled this fall."
"A bet is a tax on bullshit." I'll happily take this bet. Loser deletes their account. Their last post is a self-created thread announcing their loss.
It's shocking anyone can take Trump seriously. Never mind his inability to navigate facts, he struggles with the English language. He does not know how to use scare quotes. And "Defence"? He's surrendered to the English. George Washington said we would change the spellings of British words, specifically citing removing the "u" from "armor" and "color."
This is a dumb copy/pastah ignorant of social science.
"-Every year 500,000 to 2,000,000 crimes are prevented by lawful gun owners brandishing their weapon without shooting.]"
Why do you think this is such a wide range? Because the extrapolation from the survey data is garbage. By the same methodology, you find a ridiculous number of Americans who report they've been abducted by aliens. That's because people lie and exaggerate to feel important. They answer the phone drunk. They're also primed by the gun questions. If the first question you ask people is "Are you happy?" you'll get a different answer than if you ask it after, "How's your romantic life?" These people ask how many guns someone has, why they have guns, and then the big question, "Have the thousands you spent on firearms ever actually paid off?"
Let's go by what can be well confirmed: Fatalities. They're significantly higher in the US.
"-There are 42 times as many black on white violent crimes than white on black violent crimes."
Clumsy misdirection. We can rather easily control data to compare white Americans to other white Americans. The results are utterly mundane: greater gun availability leads to more violence. You can compare Black populations (say the US Virgin Islands to the British Virgin Islands).
Canada has relatively high rates of gun violence compared to Europe. Look at where the crime guns in Canada come from (or Mexico for that matter).
But, yeah, this has been fun, thanks for playing. Continue to believe you've been dismissed as a dumb racist when you're just a dumb non-scientist. The laws of supply and demand are a thing.
Not unlike how the natural default for human beings is warlordism rather than democracy, they also tend toward hero worship rather than fair-minded rationality. "An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance." People will believe something more credible and clever if you tell them Ben Franklin said it, and they'll think something is better and more exciting if it was directed by Hitchcock. I have little doubt the scene works for you "as a HITCHCOCK scene." This is one of the instances where general audiences can bring a more fair-minded assessment to bear than critics as they're not carrying as much baggage.
"[T]here weren't all that many action movies and thrillers MADE when North by Northwest came out in 1959."
As I said, film is a more immature art form. QWERTY keyboards have not taken the world by storm because the layout is so efficient for the modern era. In terms of apologetics for the scene, you're reduced to "stylization." In your earlier rant, you engaged in some trolling about how Tarantino is more interested in content than style. Tarantino, the guy who had a character literally draw a square on screen.
The movie was organized around three set pieces to give audiences "whammy" moments. You can rationalize some kind of commentary about a communist spy on Mt. Rushmore because of a sly sense of humor, but it happened there because it would look cool. Something like the Matrix is superior because all of the style stems from the premise. A person does not have to suspend disbelief for one thing after another; they merely have to buy into the premise.
The cropduster scene is impressive for all of its layers of stupidity.
First of all, it's dusting crops where there are no crops.
Second, what is the small plane supposed to do when it swoops down? Scare Thornhill to death? If it's supposed to make contact, then the pilot is needlessly endangering their life.
Third, there's machine gun fire. North by Northwest is my mother's favorite movie, so I bought it for her ages ago on DVD. I borrowed it once, and watched the commentary by the screenwriter. As I recall, he said that it was indeed supposed look like an accident and lamented the gunfire.
You know what would have made a lot more sense for the bad guys to do? Anything else. The closest Thornhill came to dying was almost getting run over by the truck, and that driver wasn't even trying to kill him. The bad guys should have struck him with a car if they wanted to make it look like an accident. Or brought the car to a stop and gunned him down. Amazing, that. Stopping. Planes, see, cannot stop in mid-air, which makes it difficult to carry out the murder plan.
Other parts of the movie are ridiculous. The repartee holds up well, but it's not an outstanding movie.
Fair enough. I thought it was stupid when it aired, but I was more upset with the overwhelmingly positive response. The closest thing I saw to a criticism was an attorney who said he enjoyed the episode, but would be cringing if Walt were his client and sent the recording.
Re: A Trial
Again, there's no reason to believe it would ever get to that stage. It's incredible how far bullshit goes with the public versus a court of law. Cf. Trump's election claims. It's amazing how laypeople think White's playing some kind of 4-D chess. Does his jizz taste like Kool-Aid?
Re: Internal Affairs
Internal investigations almost always go the way of the LEO. For the cop, they're a hassle -- sometimes more than a hassle -- but almost never result in criminal prosecution. Perhaps it's a misperception on my part, but it seems like cops get off scot-free even when the grievance has some legitimacy.
"Compound [Hank wanting his "collar"] by the fact that he's now feeling ultimately betrayed by Walt, and he wouldn't want that tape getting out."
This combines truth and falsehood. Hank gets pulled off the case without the recording because Walt's his brother-in-law. And that gets to the central thesis of this thread: The false allegations on the recording are meaningless to Hank.
Re: Character Motivation
I agree that characters do not have to act rationally. They do not have to realize the truth; they have to be true to themselves. But, again, the point is that Hank's a sharp, veteran agent, which is why analogies to an unloaded gun bluff ring false. If we're being true to his character, he'd look at this recording differently than the average Breaking Bad fan. He can -- and should -- be enraged at Walt, but he should not for one second believe that anyone in law enforcement will take Walt's allegations seriously.
Re: Smoking Gun
Hank's pursuing his brother-in-law. That's a problem. Just to clarify my original claim: One can try to explain Hank's behavior for a myriad of reasons, but the recording is not a game-changer; at best, it's a nothing-burger. And that's not how it's perceived by viewers.
1) I don't see how it gets to a jury. Criminal charges against Hank will not hold up. When parsimonious explanations unravel the lies, concerned parties will find themselves at crossroad. People like Skylar would most likely come clean for a reduced punishment.
2) This means almost nothing. "Erratic" behavior matters inasmuch as it leads to building a case. It comes into play at the level of law enforcement rather than prosecutor and figures into "reasonable suspicion." Ultimately, a trial requires evidence. Off the top of my head: Reasonable suspicion --> Probable cause --> Arrest --> Trial --> Conviction.
3) Yes, I agree this will cause some immediate pain, but coming forward is not only the right thing to do, it's in his own self-interest. He does not know what will happen with Walt and how he'll be implicated down the road. He could expect a shadow would be cast over him regardless of what he does.
4) Hank's a career law enforcement officer. He knows how cases are made.