The general decline in standards today

[LizzieMaine]

The Constitution has an amendment process but the document itself has been writ. It is a marvelous work struck by pragmatists,
and those issues arising in common discourse all have recourse to the essays and free and open debate under law.

True. But you can understand why arguments about Original Intent don't particularly impress me, since the Original Intent was that I couldn't vote.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Eh…I believe in the concept that evil or sin is in everyone. But that’s touching on religion so I wont get into all that.


But “The Shadow” said that he knew the evil that was in the hearts of men. So if it was in all of us, that’s the problem. Evil is in everyone, and it can lie dormant, like a slow smouldering fire. Then an outside source (like an event in y our life, or something in the news or the entertainment industry) can be like tossing a can of gas on that fire. Not always, but it can happen. J

A checkbook is the greatest accelerant for evil of all.

 

[Bushman]

I havent see it yet. I tellya though I think Band of Brothers and Platoon and Saving Private Ryan all showed a brutality to war as well. J

I would place Fury right up there with Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and Platoon as among some of the great war portrayals.

 

[jamespowers]

Eh…I believe in the concept that evil or sin is in everyone. But that’s touching on religion so I wont get into all that.


But “The Shadow” said that he knew the evil that was in the hearts of men. So if it was in all of us, that’s the problem. Evil is in everyone, and it can lie dormant, like a slow smouldering fire. Then an outside source (like an event in y our life, or something in the news or the entertainment industry) can be like tossing a can of gas on that fire. Not always, but it can happen. J

I know
https://youtu.be/-4vgaL5gjeM
Bwahhhahahahahahah!

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

They may have had merit once, but now they're just a glitzy night for Hollywood stars to show up half-naked and pat themselves on the back. "Oh, we did such a good job! Yay Hollywood!" *yucky*

:doh:

 

[ChiTownScion]

True. But you can understand why arguments about Original Intent don't particularly impress me, since the Original Intent was that I couldn't vote.

Original intent is one of the most intellectually dishonest shibboleths ever fabricated. If it were applied to the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, for instance, only those who adhere to a form of religious belief that existed in the United States in 1789 should be entitled to its protection. As a Presbyterian I'd have nothing to worry about, but if you happen to be Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist or even embrace Dispensationalist eschatology, well... none of that existed in 1789 so, too bad for you. Not a good idea at all, if you look at it honestly.

 

[Dennis Young]

:doh:

Oh man, please don’t get me started up on that event. lol I wrote a long blog about that and I know you guys wouldn’t care to see it. This was disgusting.

 

[Dennis Young]

I would place Fury right up there with Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and Platoon as among some of the great war portrayals.

I’m going to have to check that film out then. It sounds great! J

 

[LizzieMaine]

Original intent is one of the most intellectually dishonest shibboleths ever fabricated. If it were applied to the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, for instance, only those who adhere to a form of religious belief that existed in the United States in 1789 should be entitled to its protection. As a Presbyterian I'd have nothing to worry about, but if you happen to be Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist or even embrace Dispensationalist eschatology, well... none of that existed in 1789 so, too bad for you. Not a good idea at all, if you look at it honestly.

Gee, if it took out Dispensationalism, I'd almost be willing to reevaluate my view. And Dominonism, too, while we're at it.

 

[Dennis Young]

Bushman, is Fury, based on the 1936 film with Spencer Tracy? Coz that’s coming on in a few days.

 

[Bushman]

No, it's a new film. It's about a crew of a Sherman tank in the last month of World War II.

 

[Dennis Young]

Ok I saw the film just now.


Fury was, imo, an excellent film that did what it set out to do. It tells a good story and depicts the brutality of war in WW2. It also told the heroic story of the tank battalions of WW2 and what they were up against. They were usually outgunned by the superior Panzer and especially the formidable Tiger tanks the Germans had.

I liked the Brad Pitt character as well as the Shia LaBeouf one. I also liked that this film was unafraid to mention a few Bible verses and do so without ridiculing it.

Also at the end as the camera was slowly zooming out and we saw the hulk of that tank in the road, I thought it reminded me of an old tomb. And it was a tomb.
Was it better than ‘American Sniper”? I don’t know yet as I haven’t seen that one. But I must say that I am a bit biased as WW2 is a favorite era for me. I had an uncle who stormed the beach at Normandy and fought his way all the way to Berlin. He wasn’t in a Tank battalion though. He was infantry. So I thought of him a lot during this film.


Good film. Thanks for telling me about it. J

 

[Dennis Young]

I thought this was interesting.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2015/03/10/a-mans-smile-identifies-level-of-sexism/82148.html


Apparently the way a man smiles at a woman identifies a level of sexism. I was immediately reminded of my post about tipping a hat, or holding the door for women. In the article, they describe it in terms as gender discrimination.


I can just imagine what Clark Gable, John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart might have thought about this.


So men…what do you think?

 

[jamespowers]

I thought this was interesting.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2015/03/10/a-mans-smile-identifies-level-of-sexism/82148.html


Apparently the way a man smiles at a woman identifies a level of sexism. I was immediately reminded of my post about tipping a hat, or holding the door for women. In the article, they describe it in terms as gender discrimination.


I can just imagine what Clark Gable, John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart might have thought about this.


So men…what do you think?

Hmmmm....


Thoughtcrime,thoughtcrime, thoughtcrime.....

 

[Dennis Young]

The Thought Police?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Actually, if you're a woman, you know exactly what this article is referring to. If you're a man, you've never been and will never be on the receiving end of it, and you, frankly, will never understand it.

 

[Dennis Young]

I think there has been a lot of sissification of men for the past couple of decades. That’s different from just being nice. Sissification is not just being nice. Its an attempt by some to turn men into something other than being a man. Its an attempt to make men feel guilty for being a man. This article, and that professor are a fair example.

 

[Burma Schave]

I think that most women appreciate the difference between men who act helpfully and men who play the "gallant knight" with the expectation of something in return. It's the latter type which is annoying to them, and for good reason IMHO.

 

[LizzieMaine]

"We've come so far."

What the article is talking about, since I'm the only woman who hasn't given up on this thread, is an attitude of subtle condescension and patronization that is the default orientation of many men in dealing with women. I can guarantee to every one of you gentlemen that every woman you know could tell you exactly what this attitude is and how it is expressed. We face it every single day of our lives.

Pointing it out has nothing to do with "sissification" or "making men less manly." Unless "manly" has somehow been redefined as being smarmy, condescending, and patronizing.

 

[sheeplady]

Actually, if you're a woman, you know exactly what this article is referring to. If you're a man, you've never been and will never be on the receiving end of it, and you, frankly, will never understand it.

Exactly. These types of sexists are nice to women not because they respect them, but because they think a woman in incapable of handling anything. Their attitude towards women are almost the same as attitudes they have towards pets. They'd never HIT a pet. It's unthinkable to hit a defenseless animal who can't act for themselves. *

I've been told that racism is the often the same way- the subtle racists are the worst to deal with- they lull you into a false sense of security.

(*Not that they respect their significant other as a human being that doesn't deserve getting beaten; it is because they feel that they have to "take care of" their significant other BECAUSE their significant other cannot take care of herself. Like your dog can't take itself to the vet, get it's own food, or keep a roof over its head. Just like that really nice lady can't manage a family and a management role, it would simply be too stressful on her. They really have her best interests at heart.)