User Avatar Image

Things What Do Baffle Me, Like

posted by St_Eddie on - last edited - Viewed by 447 users

titlenc.jpg

This is a thread for those of you who have questions about anything from life that they've ever been seeking an explanation from. This could range from the average cost of a pint of milk, to the very meaning of existence itself.

Hopefully we can all help to answer each others questions, whilst also having our own curiosity and general bafflement resolved in the process.

I'll kick things off...


* Oranges are orange, but why? It's not as if we refer to bananas as "yellows"! Did our wording for the colour derive from the fruit or vice versa?

* Who the heck is Gordon Bennett anyway?! Like many others, I have a tendency to utter his name in anger when I'm in a state of minor annoyance (I reserve the phrase "fucking cunt bag" for when my annoyance levels slip into the red!) but I am completely clueless as to whom Gordon Bennett actually was.

* Why does my neighbor insist on playing on his bongos at three in the morning? The fucking cunt bag!

60 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Chyron8472 said: As I said, there is no point to following the rules for their own sake.

    And I defy the argument that people would do just fine on their own moral-compass-wise without God. Sure, there are people who are of sound conscience that have no belief, but I would bet that such people are unknowingly influenced toward having said conscience by others around them who do have faith.

    Also, not to rubs anyone's nose in it, but it occurs to me the number of people on here who have belittled by faith, some even going so far as to call God my "imaginary friend" all the while they sit and follow in their self pity and wish they were dead because life sucks so bad. I defy these people to prove to me how being without God has benefited them.



    i do fine with my own moral compass and i have never been religious and neither is my family.

    i will answer "I defy these people to prove to me how being without God has benefited them" ignoring the "prove to me" because going to the proving things area when talking about religion is ridiculous.

    it has benefited me having a grounded perspective on life and not hoping that a god will make things better, by being responsible for my own actions and that i am kind or nice to people because that makes life nicer, not because i want to go to heaven and avoid hell, by knowing i only have one life that doesn't end with infinite bliss for eternity just because i say a prayer and bow down to a god, by giving me a reason to want to know how the universe works and not just believing that an all powerful god made it, by knowing that everybody is just an animal trying to survive and that where you were borne who your parents are and the culture you were brought up in doesn't mean anything, by having the ability to judge the context of a scenario without the prejudices of people from thousands of years ago affecting my judgement.

    how has religion benefited you?

  • @St_Eddie said: Oh, bullshit! What absolute and utter bollocks. That's really quite offensive. My moral compass is incredibly strong and I'm not religious. I don't need to read a bible to know the difference between right and wrong, or how to treat others as I myself would like to be treated.

    I have no problem with religious people but when they start to get all high and mighty about it then we've got a problem...



    Well, though I wouldn't have put it in such clear words myself, I fully agree with St_Eddie here.

    Besides that, I think it's time we all calm down a bit and perhaps leave faith and religion alone for a while. I do fully understand how emotional such discussions can become, because challenging someones belief (be it religious or not) always means challenging their self-concept. I know enough people who are full-fledged atheists and are not grumpy or unhappy loners. I know enough people who live their religious belief not because of some written rules, but because they really feel a connection to their respective deities. And I know the exact opposite of each. Each one of them could be right or could be wrong. What really baffles me is: Why do we always try to judge people? I mean, I do it myself often enough ... but why do we feel the urge to do so? And don't tell me about evolution and individuals getting some advantage from quickly evaluating the social structures around them. That may be the catalyst but not the source.

  • @Iryon said: Well, though I wouldn't have put it in such clear words myself, I fully agree with St_Eddie here.

    Besides that, I think it's time we all calm down a bit and perhaps leave faith and religion alone for a while. I do fully understand how emotional such discussions can become, because challenging someones belief (be it religious or not) always means challenging their self-concept. I know enough people who are full-fledged atheists and are not grumpy or unhappy loners. I know enough people who live their religious belief not because of some written rules, but because they really feel a connection to their respective deities. And I know the exact opposite of each. Each one of them could be right or could be wrong. What really baffles me is: Why do we always try to judge people? I mean, I do it myself often enough ... but why do we feel the urge to do so? And don't tell me about evolution and individuals getting some advantage from quickly evaluating the social structures around them. That may be the catalyst but not the source.



    so we can decide whether what we are looking at can be eaten, can eat us, can have our babies, can help us or hurt us.

    we are genetically social animals because the social genes have been a part of the most successful of our human ancestors, and as part of a social group physical advantages are less important if you have 10 other members of your group on your side, so the ability to judge people has been an important part of our evolution and the people that are the best judges of character would have survived and passed on their genes as opposed to someone who cant judge character and gets killed because of their lack of social skills

  • One thing that baffles me is why George Lucas refused to ever release the original Original Star Wars Trilogy, remastered to as good as the SE's. Every other film maker who has SE versions has done this.

  • @Chyron8472 said: One thing that baffles me is why George Lucas refused to ever release the original Original Star Wars Trilogy, remastered to as good as the SE's. Every other film maker who has SE versions has done this.



    It's because George Lucas is an arrogant and corrupt idiot. He used to talk about how the colorization of film was wrong because you can't alter history but now that he's in a position of power, he decided "sod that, I can alter history because I'm a God amongst men".

    @Chyron8472 said: These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

    In short, he's a complete moron.

    I'm not sure if the sale of Lucasfilm to Disney will allow them to re-release the original versions in HD but I suspect probably not.

  • User Avatar Image
    Darth Marsden Moderator

    If Disney like money, I'm sure they'll release the original versions. Maybe not for a while, but mark my words.

  • @Darth Marsden said: If Disney like money, I'm sure they'll release the original versions. Maybe not for a while, but mark my words.



    Hope springs eternal but none the less is most likely a fruitless endeavor.

    @Darth Marsden said: ”At Fox they just make movies. Fox doesn't have theme parks and huge brands. This is a good fit."

    That comment makes me want to vomit chunks!

    Dancing-Vader.jpg
    Symptoms-Of-Brain-Damage-.jpg

  • @Darth Marsden said: If Disney like money, I'm sure they'll release the original versions. Maybe not for a while, but mark my words.



    They absolutely will. Disney knows there's a market for it and I'm sure they don't give a shit about George's "vision" in regards to extra CG dewbacks and revamped dance numbers.

  • @Alcoremortis said: I actually know the answer to this one!

    It's because of class and language and conquerors and vanquished. Now that I've got your attention, I'll begin.

    Basically, originally in England, I'm guessing when it was under Saxon control, these words were part of everyday speech. However, when William the Conqueror came over from France and conquered England in 1066, there was a major shift in the balance of power and the vast majority of the upper class (nobility and the like) were Norman and spoke a French dialect.

    This dialect mixed with the basic English-type language that was already in place and certain French words, replaced words from that language. Of course, since the upper class used the French words, these words were deemed more delicate and proper to use, while the peasants were the ones using the more "common" words. Since everyone wants to sound better than they are, there was a slow shift towards using the "more proper" French words.

    In a more basic example, when we eat pig meat, we don't call it "pig" which is derived from a Saxon word. We call it pork or bacon which are derived from French. I'm assuming that much the same would go for what we consider obscenities.


    That's actually rather interesting! I'll look into the topic further, but this will help to sate my curiosity for now. Thanks :)

    @Alcoremortis said: This was the first thing I thought, but why? Was otherworldly conscience caused us to have the same thought simultaneously?It must be, DAISHI, it must be, for I simply can't think of any other explanation.

    @Alcoremortis said: Religious debates rarely go anywhere good. Just saying is all...
    Strongly seconded. Except I'd omit the word 'good'.

    @Alcoremortis said:
    And I defy the argument that people would do just fine on their own moral-compass-wise without God. Sure, there are people who are of sound conscience that have no belief, but I would bet that such people are unknowingly influenced toward having said conscience by others around them who do have faith.
    Hmm, see, this is a belief that I don't subscribe to, even as a Christian. I don't believe that the world can provide mankind with an objective morality, but I don't believe that that prevents a person, or even a community, from formulating their own moral guide/compass that can be at least somewhat efficient and inherently good. I believe that a person is capable of living a moral life without the Bible's instruction and without a belief in God, because we DO have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. Whether you believe that sense is instilled in us by God, or is simply instinctual and evolutionary, it's there; we have that inner framework which allows us to grasp the idea of morality independently from a relationship with God or a religious guideline.
    And I believe that some people are able to use that innate ability in order to dictate their actions, make sensible choices, and construct their own sufficient moral compass. However, such a moral compass is illusory, I believe, and lacks a foundational cornerstone. BUT, that does not make them necessarily inaccurate, nor does it mean that the individual lacks conviction to consistently maintain personal moral criteria, nor does it mean that their concept of morality can't be advantageous to themselves, other human beings, and society as a whole.

    But, for the record, I don't believe that such a system is as efficient or beneficial as well-executed Christianity. The only problem is that Christianity is seldom well-executed, which is why there are so many Atheists out there who live a more Christian life with their own moral compasses than most Christians do.

    [...]some even going so far as to call God my "imaginary friend"[...]
    Aside from deriding and mocking my faith, I'm really sick of people using that term almost solely based upon unoriginality.

    @Alcoremortis said: One thing that baffles me is why George Lucas refused to ever release the original Original Star Wars Trilogy, remastered to as good as the SE's. Every other film maker who has SE versions has done this.
    If we're going to change the topic, must we jump from one feather-ruffler to another?

  • User Avatar Image
    Darth Marsden Moderator

    What? I'd have thought the logical leap would be obvious - George Lucas is the Devil.

Add Comment