|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 21, 2009 2:51:29 GMT -5
Fine... It may not have been Japanese but it so fucking was herky jerky. So was that shitball gi joe cartoon. If they can't find the money to animate more than a frame every three seconds, it's herky fucking jerky. It looks just like pokemon and half the other shit that's on; a mouth has like four different shapes and the eyes blink every five seconds and that's the extent of the "animation" for stretches at a time.
Whatever country or studio you want to blame it on it's still shit. Give me some examples of quality animation from that time frame then. WTF is your problem?
This wasn't an attack on you and it has nothing to do with the op or the exchange I had with skyfire.
He bitched the animation on JQ sucked, he watches transformers and shit which is worse and came about much later.
But you want better than transformers or gi joe?
Bugs Bunny, Disney, Popeye, Tom and Jerry, Fritz the fucking cat looked better IMO.
So relax your ass.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 21, 2009 2:02:32 GMT -5
Transformers, gobots, speedracer, all of that crappy bullshit. Gobots was a Hanna-Barbara cartoon, and Transformers was done by the same animation studios that did G.I. Joe. The animation may have had errors from time to time (as happens in all series) but it wasn't 'Japanese', nor was it herky-jerky. Fine... It may not have been Japanese but it so fucking was herky jerky. So was that shitball gi joe cartoon. If they can't find the money to animate more than a frame every three seconds, it's herky fucking jerky. It looks just like pokemon and half the other shit that's on; a mouth has like four different shapes and the eyes blink every five seconds and that's the extent of the "animation" for stretches at a time.
Whatever country or studio you want to blame it on it's still shit.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 21, 2009 1:59:08 GMT -5
no. they didn't.
And how is it better than Johnny Fucking Quest?
A: It's not! Oh, you guys, both shows were just terrible But the subject was; the quality of the animation. Sky decided to fixate on the animation and in the process bash JQ which looked a helluva lot better than the shit he liked that came 20 years later. It's just another instance of him attacking the messenger or fixating on a small part instead of addressing the issues.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 21, 2009 1:53:57 GMT -5
Try reading the name of the thread and do some research into what exactly FSTDT is and what it stands for you stupid fucking fundie apologist. If you don't have that much down, it's no wonder you see everyone here as 'anti' mormon.
You're here making excuses for racism and you think that it's odd of us to find that offensive.
You defend child molesters and women as chattel, and you find it strange that we hold you and your religion responsible for behaviour you are defending. Can you not see that makes you a fundie racist idiot for not understanding our dislike of mormonism?
It's because of you, moron, you've been told that repeatedly. You've been given arguments nad counter arguments and you have ignored and dismissed most of it in order to hold to the delusion that referring to blacks as "darkies" was something the REST OF THE WORLD made you leader do. It was EVERYONE ELSE who made your leaders demand the unbending rule of death applied to the coupling of black and white people.
If your being a total cracker fuckstick is our fault, you feel free to show us exactly why that would be. Until then, you've slit your own throat here, bubba. All racists turn to self-pity and accusations when someone flips the rock they live under and the truth burns their skin. +1. And I think I want to hump your leg. But mostly, +1. I seriously don't see how Sky could possibly think that his shtick would make his faith look anything short of sick and horrific. I appreciate the leg hump offer! There is also a tremendous difference in what the handbook says and in what really happens, and Skyfire, you cannot deny this is true. I know far too many other Mormons who have personal experience with this issue in far too many different "congregations" for that bolded part to fly. The people in power know how to cover their asses in print. That doesn't mean that's what they're doing in practice. I'm just telling Jon what the official policy is. Especially since, as I noted at the end of the post, he was doing to me one of the very same things that he got offended over when he said I did it to him. Oh, like how you just mentioned a few days ago how you're a "rebel" mormon who swears and drives fast but then a couple days later you winge: (in reference to jon’s post) *expletive-laced posting* Jon, was that post really necessary? All it did was make you look juvenile. “Doing the same thing to him” like that?
Fucking hypocrite. Jon's post was little more than an insult towards my character, stating that since I was never called it must mean that there's something wrong with me. No. YOU imply that with your posts. You only choose to see Jon’s words as an insult to whatever you deem to be your “character”. I can only assume you are using that word in the context of a literary figure or part or role in a play or comic book as the definition of ‘integrity’ in no way applies to you or your comments here. In the process, he revealed his own personal ignorance of how the system is officially supposed to work - it's on the prospective missionary to initiate things now. LOL! Not at all. All you did was argue against him as you proved him right. You added a bit more detail but only cemented what information he already beat you to. That means he is a better source of information than you. Good job.He also made the assumption that I even submitted my paperwork in the first place; I never did. Wrong again. Hey sky, ‘Chicken Little’ much?
Oh, and Star Cluster didn’t refer to anything but the time he thought that had passed since Jon was a mormon, I don’t know how you got something that fucking simple fucked up. I guess it’s easy to see demons when you convince yourself they are everywhere. when one of my brothers was on a mission, he had a companion who was basically tricked / pressured into going by his parents. Said companion simply wanted to spend his entire day sleeping, and when my brother tried to force the issue the companion responded by trying to punch him (a bad idea, as my brother had taken boxing lessons at college before he got his call). Said companion ended up having to be sent home from the mission field. And this is nice…
This proves that it IS detrimental to the cause to make missionary work mandatory. That was a point that was made TO you that you argued and then verified with this story. You chose to see that information as a slam against you simply because the one who brought it up was an EX mormon.
It also proves that neither you nor your brother has a clue as to how to deal with real people in the real world. He beats people over the head with his fists and you beat people over the head with the idea that you’re a racist liar. We get it; you're both psychos.Julian, I've actually seen the ca. 2007 Handbook of Instruction. The part I referenced in bold is indeed in the text for that edition. The image you have is from an older, obsolete version of the text, one which may well be - as Star Cluster supposed - 10+ years old. Aside from that NOT being what SC said or what he meant by it, do show us you’ve “actually seen” an issue newer than the one shown. And also, some proof that the 2006 version was deemed “obsolete” if you have the 2007 copy.
I know you won’t because you can’t. And I know you won’t because you’re afraid to even address me.
And I know you’re liar so that cinches the fact that you won’t do it but it’s still not going to deter me from taking you to task on your lies.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 6:40:38 GMT -5
Again, maybe it is the LACK of attention to other reasons that make some of us CF's feel as that you haven't given attention to the other reasons Okay, Red, I'll just bit one more time, because it has seemed that a weekend has done nothing to curb your 'venom', as you've put it. The reasons that were picked out were ones that people thought were bad ones, ones based on faulty/erroneous information. After a weekend though, all that shit has been clarified whilst you were gone, and we are all past that. I don't want to have to continuously explain myself over that instance of you asking for specifics, which meant I HAD to keep bringing certain things up in order to deal directly with your question, because you were complaining about me being vague. Now you are shafting me as well for dealing with that question of yours? I don't go after points I have no problem with, because in my case, I was only interested in the certain points people made that I thought were erroneous! If person A gives 10 reasons on X, but I find 2 of those reasons on X to be wrong, should one automatically assume that all the other reasons are wrong as well? It works both ways here Red. And NOT mentioning them at all doesn't show you doing anything BUT complaining and arguing against the subject as a whole. Yes, if you agreed with any points, then you weren't obvious enough about them for me to get that impression. Of course, your attitude was lacking so maybe I scanned over your calling names and condescending... I guess we'll never know. So for goodness sake Red, give it a rest? Also, I don't recall JonathanE posting on this thread, nor does such a post seem to exist when I read through. Maybe you mixed up JonE for someone else. Enough has been said on this matter anyway. Oops. JonE and I were dealing with idiocy on another thread. Must've made a mistake.
Oh... I mean, "Rant, rant, "I'm never wrong!" rant, rant, snarl!"
I specifically said I was giving it a rest. Guess you missed that.
Boy, this has been fun! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 6:28:11 GMT -5
And thats fine. That is why I used my Father as an example. Where does the scientific questioning end and your faith begin? You say you believe in Evolution, which is possible, but put the rest of the biblical stories up to scientific scrutiny and which side do you take? Again, you cannot successfully merge the two when you have one, science, that questions and attempts to debunk everything, and another, faith, that is reliant upon certain ideologies & belief in the invisible. Most (sane) Xians will say they do in fact believe in Evolution. But somehow, these same Xians cannot accept science's debunking of the creation myth or Noah's Ark. Because if they do, that would put every biblical claim up to scientific scrutiny. I am also a Christian and have no problem believing in Evolution so I'll give your question a go. Oh, and for record, I do accept science's 'debunking' of the creation myth and I do acknowledge that the story of the great flood was either a sizeable local flood or it never happened in any form what-so-ever. I assume you have heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf. A boy kept screaming that a wolf was attacking him as a joke and all the townspeople who kept rushing out to help got annoyed when they found out there was no wolf. Eventually a wolf did actually attack the boy and when he cried out that he was being attacked, no one believed him thinking he was just playing another joke and he died as no one rushed out to help. This story never actually happened (that we know of), but that doesn't mean that the message behind this fable is any less invalid. Likewise, just because God did not actually create the world in seven days, nor did Noah collect 2 of each kind of animal does not mean that there are not great spiritual truths to be learned from these stories. And Aesops FABLES are called FABLES.
Bible stories are called; The word of god.
No one I know of thinks the Boy/wolf story is factually real. The parables from the bible I saw as similar stories, but the story of noah, adam and eve, jesus and the rest were/are put forth as fact. if we eliminate all that is "probably not real" from teh bible there isn't anything left. So yes, by all means put up every biblical claim to scientific scrutiny; it is no skin of my nose. The problem with that approach is that there are certain claims in the bible that are unable to be put under scientific scrutiny. For example, how can we use the scientific method today to put the biblical claim that Jesus is the Son of God and rose from the dead? We can't. That's why it's not readily believed. We can't prove Set existed or not either so your story has the same credibility as Odin or Poseidon: None. This was a one-off event, and short of using science to create some form of time machine that will allow us to go back 2000 years and witness these supposed events for ourselves, there is no way for us to determine if this is the case or not. This is where faith comes into play. Like faith in Set or Odin Or Poseidon. I do not know for sure if Jesus was God or not, I do not know for sure if he rose from the dead or not. What I do know is that when I have placed my faith in God my life has been enriched beyond measure and that is proof enough for me. I realise however that that is not proof enough for you, and that is fine. If the basis for your belief is irrational, it shouldn't be a surprise if others do not see your belief as rational. At least you realize this. Finally, I have never, even as a child ever thought that Science and Religion need to be in conflict. In my eyes, it is like if I supported the New York Yankees baseball team and the Boston Celtics basketball team. No it is not. You just stated that your belief is based on "faith" and it is by definition, irrational. Science can be proven so your comparison between two PROVEN teams is a false one. Yes, it may seem like a strange combination given the intense rivalry between New York and Boston sporting teams (or so I've heard, I live in Australia myself!), but there would be nothing inherently contradictory in my choice of teams. Likewise, Science and Religion address different questions. Science is fantastic, it tells us how we evolved to become who we are today, and it has brought us right through the Stone Age to our high tech world that we live in now. Religion is fantastic, science is facts. Yet despite these great accomplishments, it will never be able to give meaning to our lives. People try to feel this void in many different ways, for example they may become big proponents of human rights or of animal rights, prehaps they might try to feel this void in their lives by buying as many possessions as they can. Regardless, this is the area that Religion seeks to address. Religion can give us meaning, while Science can give us none. There is no need for Science and Religion to be in conflict... Science isn't supposed to give meaning, only understanding.
Religion, if it is an irrational and unprovable thing, can "seek to address" anything it wants but it is still based on "faith" aka, wishful thinking. So it's results are meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 6:14:53 GMT -5
i think he was more aiming for speed racer "IWILLWINTHISRACEWITHTHEFABULOUSMARK5HAHA!" "NOYOUCAN'TRACEINTHISONESPEED,YOURBROTHERWASKILLEDINITHAHA!" "MYSTERIOUSRACERXHAHA!" Bear in mind that the entire 1960s series was dubbed with all of five voice actors who were operating on a shoestring budget. This was also well before the invention of technologies that could allow changes to the artwork to compensate for non-Japanese voice talent. All things considered, they did pretty darn good. no. they didn't.
And how is it better than Johnny Fucking Quest?
A: It's not!
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 6:13:58 GMT -5
If you're knocking Voltron, we may have a problem, brother. Transformers, gobots, speedracer, all of that crappy bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 5:37:05 GMT -5
Oriet, you made an incredibly difficult and painful decision for all the right reasons, and I don't think anyone would think there was anything monstrous about that. And if someone does, well that person is incredibly stupid/fill-in-the-blank. The biggest part of being a good parent is doing what is best for the child--you and Magni very clearly did that. Doesn't mean the child has to stay with you to make you a good parent. I applaud your choices, which had to be incredibly confusing and emotional at the time. I think I'm done with all this.
Basically what Oriet said minus actually having a kid to come to that conclusion.
Now, I might be (fuck it... i AM) a big fucking asshole, but with just a smidge more cursing and addressing all the same things, I basically said the same goddamned thing as Oriet and some others.
I KNOW I would be driven to that same place as Magni Zeal and Oriet were headed. This is partially because the things I mentioned, those reasons why I don't like to BE AROUND kids, drive me up a wall. So... I decided that One plus One equals Two and decided to pull myself out of the running completely.
According to the bulk of this thread, that makes me a creep who is 'no better than' someone who hates black people because 'they are too loud', selfish and a whole plethora of accusations and implied attributes that would usually NOT be inferred on some drunken idiot who couldn't figure out how to use a condom properly. It is testament that child-free folks, while being TOLD that their decision is respected, many if not most times are NOT.
And it's not just the obvious things, it's the implied and backhanded insults like "you'll grow out of it" and "you just aren't a real person until you breed" and the like. That is NOT respectful, even if it is not intentional harm or insults.
Unfortunately this thread has only solidly reinforced my opinion and my direct experience of how the child-free people are treated. We're not equals, we sure as hell aren't respected, we're tolerated at a best, and we have to prove ourselves not to be monsters at worst.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 5:18:21 GMT -5
No. There's a difference between saying "OK, I disagree with you and here's why..." and saying "you're being stupid an irrational." That is being disrespectful. So again, fuck you. But what I have said before is nothing but a "I disagree with you and here's why...", with regards to what you've stated as one or two of your reasons. Not even all your reasons! A BIG part of the problem.
Shitting adults was used as a counter example and it was agreed that if the adult held ALL the same traits along with shitting then it would be the same.
The abuse of animals was brought up by two people at least half a dozen times and NONE of the rest of AL's points were addressed.
Is it surprising that we feel like you haven't addressed all points when you admit that you've only addressed a select few? NOT bitching about each and every one of the reasons is supposed to automatically be assumed that you support them? If I came across as the latter, then okay, sorry. However, nothing I've written to you has been like that, at least not with intention. I did state the why parts and provided citation, along with stating clearly that I only was pointing out that one statement of yours was incorrect. Okay? Again, maybe it is the LACK of attention to other reasons that make some of us CF's feel as that you haven't given attention to the other reasons
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 5:13:21 GMT -5
Yes but doesn't that cover a much smaller range of people? Yes certain adults have bowel problems. That's just one characteristic I mentioned, and that applies to few adults. It's not even common amongst the elderly as some people claim it is. Yes, but that was just a side point to just highlight the point of things not being as simple as it may seem. But regardless, that point was an admission with a side-note. I never saw any CF'ers state that ANYTHING was simple. In fact, myself and others posted some rather lengthy posts where we attempted to explain ourselves and most everyone had a number of complaints about children and it wasn't' anything as trivial as something aesthetic or even made up like a stereotype. All reasons were factual reasons, though not all of them were solid and almost none of them stood alone as a single reason for disliking.
So "simple as it seems" is used by you as if we were implying it was a simple problem. This is what I mean. "simple" wasn't used by ANYBODY but you right now as if it were an issue all along.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 5:09:08 GMT -5
Goddammit Blue, I'm sick of this getting dragged out again and again and again. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine; it's not going to change anything. But you wouldn't like it if I told you or anyone else here that your reasons for liking/wanting/having kids were stupid or irrational (which by the way NO ONE here has done). So what gives you or DV the right to say it to me? Fuck off, seriously. Oh dear. Someone else asks me to cite an example of where I'm being specific to a point I'm dealing with, I give an example to that person to clarify, and then I'm attacked for citing said example? Come on now, Aqualung, this is getting silly. Silly is this response. WAy to insinuate that she 'attacked you' FOR your clarifying example when she clearly 'attacked you' for the content of the statement.
"attacked for citing said example" is wrong. She is sick of the subject being brought up eight ways from sunday. I am too. As are others. So before you misstate yourself again, I'd suggest a series of cheek unclenchings. And for your information, if I expressed reasons for anything that were seen to be stupid or irrational, then yes, I'd expect people to say something about it. Now, I might not necessarily agree or like it, BUT, it is what I expect, and I expect the arguments against what I have stated to be factual and logical. If I'm wrong, then I would have to change at least the reasons why I might like/dislike something. That's just how it goes (for me at least) You express an opinion, other people are free to comment on it. The same applies to me and everyone else. I don't expect you to change the opinion, that is up to you and you alone on the matter. However, since you stated such an opinion, do you expect me not to comment on it at all? Or am I to let a statement slide despite me knowing it is demonstrably false just so I don't offend you? And as such, if you make a comment is she supposed to not "offend you" by not commenting back?
She responded directly to your critique of her. Why is that a problem and why do you have to make it seem like she is out of line to do so? Anyway, I have said enough on the matter, so let's just chill?
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 5:00:05 GMT -5
But that's just it--it doesn't work the same. What Red and other people have been saying is that children actually do the things that we listed, like scream and cry for no reason and go to the bathroom in their diapers forcing you to clean it, and fail to understand anything, rendering them incapable of having a discussion about anything with you. That's just how that developmental stage of life works, just like if I said many elderly people have trouble getting around or doing physical labor. Just because it describes a lot of people, that doesn't make it unfair or untrue. With regards to the screaming and crying, usually it IS for a reason, whether a silly one or a proper one. Kids don't just start crying for the hell of it. With babies, yes, cleaning up after them does come with the territory, but so is dealing with certain adults, unfortunately. What I took to task with you mostly though was the personality issue. Sure, the personalities may not be as developed as an adults, BUT, there is still enough variety like with any group as to not classed as being "all the same". And they are all still "same enough" to NOT BE ADULTS!
If there were no reasons to lump kids together based on their underdeveloped brains, why are there age limits on certain activities?
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 4:58:45 GMT -5
But that's just it--it doesn't work the same. What Red and other people have been saying is that children actually do the things that we listed, like scream and cry for no reason and go to the bathroom in their diapers forcing you to clean it, and fail to understand anything, rendering them incapable of having a discussion about anything with you. That's just how that developmental stage of life works, just like if I said many elderly people have trouble getting around or doing physical labor. Just because it describes a lot of people, that doesn't make it unfair or untrue. This entire thing has turned into a pile of crap.
The OP was that some people didn't want to have kids and some people here even said they hated kids. The reasons were given and none were treated as legitimate excuses or reasons.
It really just falls apart from there. If the reasons are not addressed or considered legitimate, and if the abuse subject is brought up without AL's name in the post, and if "hate" is used when addressing nearly everyone on the "dislike kids" side of this, then we end up like we are now.
There is nothing but "don't read into what so-and-so said" while that person reads into it... and lots of crap that has bottomed out this entire discussion.
I'm not going through all of this because there isn't any more to say.
Whatever blue and dv have to say or bitch about, that's up to them. It's not that I don't care, it's that I no longer care. I don't even know what they are pissed about anymore.
JonE explained this racist thing nicely. DV you WERE implying that they are the same, you have admitted that they are with your "on par with/no better than" comment.
I stated why I dont' like kids. And that was the whole fucking thread so that's pretty much it.
Then some of us tried to explain how people like to pry in our live and how they act as if not having kids makes us less than complete people, right down to a parent TELLING us that we are less than complete people without kids. I think the parents here have more or less demonstrated most of the points we were making.
Like it or suck it, I don't care. You think I'm racist for not liking kids or that my dislike for kids is "on par with/no better than" being a racist for an untrue reason? I don't give a fuck. That's your problem.
You want to claim that the above was never implied? I don't fucking care about that either. I know what I read and I have repeatedly asked for clarification on things that I supposedly wasn't "getting".
All I know is that nobody has shown me that kids are cheap, easy, rational, reasonable, strong, smart, quiet, easy to maintain or not time consuming.
Therefore I still don't care for them. All the rest of this thread can be burned.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 4:40:20 GMT -5
This is again, that very IMPLIED and thinly veiled; I'm right and what the fuck do you know? attitude that we are talking about.
It was insulting to LF and to those people she was refering to, because she and those folks don't agree with YOU. It was attacking people personally based on their decisions in an attempt to ridicule and it is or should be beneath you.
That was an emotional and irrational way to deal with something you have issue with. Damn Red, now you are grasping at straws... Context would be nice. But then, you'd have to start.
It's easier and more fun to post neat little flashing squares of shit in lieu of you know, explaining yourself or putting my words in context.
Good for you though. When you get bored with child's games and tantrums I'd love to talk to you again. Guess that whole, "stop being vague'' thing was too much for you to handle?
|
|