You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Brian
I never claimed science as the reason I want to go. I want to go because it'd be cool.
You're also over simplifying the technological obstacles of previous eras of exploration. Yes, the technical challenges were simpler, but so were the solutions available to them. I bet, if there were even a way to begin to calculate it, that the gap between technological challenge and solution is smaller for prospective Martian colonists today than for previous eras of exploration.
Also:
But mostly to see this:
Even if this could happen safely, with very few health risks, who on this awesome planet EARTH would want to spend the rest of their lives on MARS?
Me.
These people are dumb. They're not going anywhere.
I suggested "The Unprofessionals" which was liked, but not necessarily for the overall new show.
I'm doing some spring cleaning and trying to reduce the number of excess copies of Thanksgiving With the Kranzes I have from approximately 30 to approximately 0. I have about 15 left.
If you want one, say so and I'll toss it in the post. First come, first serve.
"Carbonated beverage cans flown aboard STS-51-F, image taken at the National Air and Space Museum."
Breaking Bad is MacBeth, but better.
Embry-Riddle likes to call itself (or claim other people call it) the Harvard of the Skies.
One of my professors jokes that Harvard calls itself the Embry-Riddle of the Ground.
It's just a show, you should really just relax.
If it's technological, I may be able to help.
"That place burned down 30 years ago." - Sounds like the opening act in every "Are you afraid of the dark"/ "Twilight Zone"/ "Outer Limits" I've ever seen.
Oh, it's from "It's a Wonderful Life," when George is running around seeing the town as if he'd never lived. He asks where the Building and Loan building went and someone in the crowd says, "It went out of business 20 years ago!"
So there you go.
Starting Strength.
Though that's not a supplement, that's a primary thing that other things supplement.
That'd be funny if it were Gervais and Merchant.
That's not what he's saying at all, Eddie.
Guh, I don't have time to get sucked into this. But he doesn't literally watch a movie and process it as dry information. He's making a distinction at the legal definition level, not the human experience level.
Clarity
Specificity
Brevity
I'm dying to see this.
Too soon.
This conversation has gotten so far afield as to be pretty meaningless at this point.
Let me explain. No there is too much, let me sum up.
Dorkman et al believe because male characters aren't generally posed in the same overtly sexualized positions as female characters (ie said Avengers artwork), that men aren't sexualized [as much?]. I et al believe that men are sexualized as well (if not necessarily as much), but in a way that reflects the underlying attributes that (generally) define attraction for women, which are more about confidence, social status, and a certain kind of dominance, than physical looks alone. Getting upset that men are not sexualized/idealized/objectified in exactly the same way as women strikes me as slightly ridiculous.
This does not mean that sexism, objectification, or other cultural inequality don't exist in comics or culture at large. It's just that the cited example is a terrible way to make the point. Doubly so when it's coming from a movie written and directed by noted empowered female character creator Joss Whedon (even if we're talking marketing and not the actual movie).
K?
She may find a ripped male standing upright in a dominant position just as sexualized as men do of a woman bending over. It's the end result or the concept of sexualization that's the key, not the specific pose, as different poses work depending on gender.
Exactly.
I remember reading an X-Men comic somewhere along the way where even his legs are impossibly muscular and well defined, but the above image was the closest I could find in a web search.
Anyway, my point remains the same. Men are sexualized right along with women in how they're portrayed in comics and movies, it's just that men are sexualized in different ways from women. And what's wrong with being sexy anyway? Last time I checked none of us were Puritans.
What we're actually arguing over is something different, we're really arguing over objectification. The question is, "Is Scarlett Johannson being objectified as a sexual object and not being considered a person in her depiction in the movie or in that poster?" Is she treated or depicted in a manner in which she is nothing more than an inanimate object, without personality, dignity, self agency, or respect, and solely for men's sexual gratification? And the answer is obviously no. She's a character with a personality that passes the Plinkett Test and everything.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of examples of women characters being objectified all over media, including comics. But objectification and sexualizaton are different things and we needn't clutch our pearls over ScarJo showing some curve in the same frame as three guys with biceps the size of your thigh. And let's be honest, knee jerking about sexism in a movie written and directed by Joss Whedon is a little bit ridiculous.
Even the crippled dude is ungodly ripped.
Wonder how many hanging leg raises he had to do to get those abs.
I clicked "Random Article" and got my own page.
Agree on all previous points re: causality and second magic bean.
My big question was, doesn't it seem like a bad idea to rely on yourself to kill yourself? Yes, with a hood there's no reason you'd necessarily know, but still. Why not send Joe to Seth and Seth to Joe?
Every time they check their phones, they haven't moved, or they're even more lost than before.
So they used Apple Maps?
Somebody already had the idea:
My question is, why Yeoh and no Liu? And also, can Michelle Rodriguez please go away forever.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Brian
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
