The Wrath

Yeah, but surely there's a limit. I mean, I like stuff like The Shining and The Omen. I know slasher films have a lower threshold but, man...as much as I dislike Halloween, Friday the 13th, etc., I can at least respect that there is some resemblance of technical proficiency behind how they were made.

It may be immoral, but it's not nihilistic, since he values his son.

I always thought it was amusing that a woman who compares people to Nazis for throwing away their Dixie Chicks CDs is accusing people of "not knowing their history."

Isn't male circumcision done primarily for sanitary purposes?

Well, as long as we're being spelling and grammar Nazis...

Be careful about joining the Teaparties.

The thing that really kills me about this movie--setting aside, for a moment, the fact that its sole purpose is to depict human suffering--is that it is so poorly-made, yet has received such critical and popular acclaim. Even Roger Ebert gave it 3 and a half stars, and I usually agree with his reviews. I could do a remake of this movie in the woods behind my apartment with the video camera function on my cell phone, and have it be more technically proficient. And that says a lot, because I don't know the first thing about how to direct a movie.

And probably with good reason. If your purpose is to study film, then it makes sense, because that movie spawned an entire genre. Albeit one that makes the world a worse place.

I don't even have to think about it. Last House on the Left. Wes Craven is a sick fuck and I think it is a stinging indictment of our culture that a man who produces nihlistic, sado-masochistic (not to mention poorly written, poorly acted, and technically inept) pornography such as this "movie" has maintained enough credibility to continue doing it for nearly 40 years.

I watched this last night and I highly recommend it. It's a chronicle of the last few days in Hitler's bunker, based off of the memoirs of one of his secretaries who was there. What makes it unique is that it's probably the only movie I've ever seen that depicts the Nazis as actual people. It's not a sympathetic portrayal, but a realistic one. "The Nazis" have become such a Hollywood cliche that they are shown in practically every movie as essentially being a group of comic book villains. Indiana Jones and Hellboy come to mind. Even realistic war movies like Patton and Saving Private Ryan don't treat the Nazis as actual human beings, but as some intangible evil against which the Allies are fighting. Downfall shows the war from the vantage point of the Nazis and tries to recreate the atmosphere that existed in the last few days of the Third Reich. As a sidenote, I had never even heard of this movie until recently, but one particular clip has become quite the YouTube phenomenon. People have taken to removing the original subtitles and replacing them with hilarious new ones so that Hitler is ranting about having his bike stolen, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmEAo-nzBgY, etc. The latter is the first one that got my attention.

Uhh...that isn't what I meant, nor is there anything in that post that makes it reasonable to think that that's what I meant. I meant only that it is impossible to prove a negative and, therefore, people who describe themselves as atheists seldom claim to have absolute proof that there is no supreme being.

Atheism does not mean "absolute certainty that there is no God." Look at the etymology of the word. A=without. Theism=belief in God. Atheism=without belief in God. I am perfectly comfortable using the phrase "there is no God," for the same reason I am comfortable saying that there is no Santa Clause. Both are arbitrary claims and I don't need to be able to disprove them in order to dismiss them with a wave of my hand.

You're splitting hairs. The Big Bang emerged from a singularity that existed for a tiny fraction of a second. There was nothing before that tiny fraction of a second. Or, more properly stated, there was no before that tiny fraction of a second. And your paraphrased explanation is wrong. That is a common misquoting of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is not about the "simplest" explanation. It's about the one that contains the least "entities." In this case, Occam's Razor requires us to choose the explanation that does not involve an omnipotent creator, since he is not necessary. And so what if the explanations aren't satisfactory? That somehow proves that God was involved? Human civilization is less than 10,000 years old. Modern science is less than 300 years old. Let's give ourselves some more time before we throw up our hands and proclaim that we will never be able to answer the enigma of the origin of the universe. You missed the point. Go back and read the post again. The universe is undoubtedly complex, but that does not imply that it was designed. If you see a house you can conclude that someone built it, because there are no natural processes which allow lumber, metal, mortar, etc. to come together to form a house, without prodding by some intelligent being. The same is not true of the universe. We understand why the earth moves around the sun. We understand the galaxies rotate. We understand why the diversity of life arose. We understand these based off of the laws of nature and, therefore, do not need to posit a supernatural creator. I don't know anyone who believes that fish can turn into elephants. Your understanding of evolution is poor enough that you really have no business trying to discuss it. Your first sentence gives an example of microevolution...the same kind of evolution that differentiates the different breeds of cats and dogs, as well as the different races of the human species. The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution (i.e. the differentiation of species) is one of timescale. Saying that you believe in microevolution by not macroevolution is roughly the equivalent of saying "it is possible for me to walk to the kitchen, but walking to the mall is physically impossible." Credit to thunderf00t (from YouTube) for the metaphor. Negatives can't be proved anyway. The purpose of that argument is to point out that our eyes are not so "OMG AMAZING" as to prove that they were designed. They're actually quite feeble things, when you consider how much better they could be.

I suspect other people have already responded to this, but I'm doing it anyway. As Megan already pointed out, time is part of the universe. This has been scientifically proved using applications of general relativity. Since the universe itself began at the Big Bang, it makes no sense to ask what came before it. And since cause and effect require time (i.e. the cause comes before the effect), then the universe is, by definition, uncaused. However unsatisfying the explanation of an uncaused universe may be, it isn't any more satisfying to posit an uncaused God. Properly stated, Occam's Razaor says "do not multiply entities beyond necessity." Taken from Wikipedia: This is a more accurate definition than saying "the simplest explanation tends to be the right one," because anything can be made to sound more or less complicated, depending on how you phrase it. Occam's Razor, instead, tells you that you shouldn't posit 3 entities, where 2 offer a perfectly satisfactory explanation. We know the universe exists and, no matter how much trouble we have explaining why, it's silly to posit an additional entity (God), when doing so does not further the answer to the question of existence. You refute the assumption by showing that there is no evidence of a designer. Saying that the universe has design means, by definition, you are saying that it has a designer, because design cannot exist without a designer. So you're basically saying "we know the universe has a designer because it has a designer." I'm not going to explain the theory of evolution to you, but the questions that you're asking about it show that you don't have a grasp on its basic principles. Evolution works by means of natural selection, not coincidence. When it comes to the creationist argument about our eyes, my response is usually to point out that our eyes pretty much suck, when you consider the whole range of electromagnetic waves. We are able to see only a minute fraction of the possible wavelengths that a more advanced eye would be able to see.

There is one argument for the existence of God that I think is more or less rationally constructed: the Cosmological argument. This is the argument in lethalmiko's post about "what caused the singularity, etc." I say it is rationally constructed, because its basic premise is correct and there is a logical train which does actually make rational sense. The premise I'm thinking of is "all events in the physical world have causes." IMO, this argument has two primary failings which allow me to dismiss it: 1.) It doesn't solve the mystery of existence. It just pushes it back another step, from the universe to God. When you point this out, the theist will usually say, "God doesn't need a cause." My response to that is, "Then why not just save a step and say 'the universe doesn't need a cause' instead?" 2.) It violates Occam's Razor by multiplying entities beyond necessity. The other main arguments for God's existence (Teleological and Ontological) are not even remotely rational. The Teleological argument (argument from design) is essentially a tautology. It starts by assuming that there is design in the universe, and then concludes that there must be a designer. The theist is gonna have a tough time proving that he is right in his perception of "design," and his attempts to do so will invariably not stand up to scrutiny. Then there's the extremely rationalistic Ontological argument, which basically consists of thinking yourself into a pretzel of twisted logic with no referents in the physical world. When I come across a theist who uses the Cosmological argument, I am much more inclined to have a conversation with him and treat his beliefs with more respect than I typically will when trying to debate a religious person. I have so little respect for the other 2 arguments, that I usually won't even bother to debate with people who use them.

Nice. I went the easy route, because I knew I could link it to Indy if I just found my way to an actor. You get to make the next challenge now.

I got bored, so I devised a new game. Here are the rules: Start with any article on Wikipedia and, using only links available on that article, try to navigate to another pre-chosen article, in as few steps as possible. For example, I'm starting with "Venezuela" and trying to get to "Indiana Jones." Here are the steps I went through to get there: Venezuela --> Hugo Chavez --> Time 100 --> George Clooney --> Ocean's Eleven --> Brad Pitt --> The Devil's Own --> Harrison Ford --> Indiana Jones That's 8 steps. Whoever can get it in 7 or less steps gets to make the next challenge.

And what precisely does that mean? I'm a busy man with a full-time (indeed, usually somewhat more than full-time) job, a social life, and a myriad of other things to keep me occupied, so please excuse my failure to respond according to your schedule. If you'll read my post, you'll find that my point about voting wasn't about voting, per se. It was about a prerequisite of voting: citizenship. From Wikipedia: "Israel was established as a homeland for the Jewish people and is often referred to as the Jewish state. The country's Law of Return grants all Jews and those of Jewish lineage the right to Israeli citizenship." It's not that easy for non-Jews to immigrate to Israel and become citizens. This is a well-known fact among people who are at all familiar with Israeli politics. Then there's the fact that Israel has continued to refuse to grant a similar "right of return" for Palestinians and their descendants. Now, I don't care so much about the fact that the "Palestinians" don't have a right of return. But I have a moral problem with any country that bases its immigration policy on ethnicity. As an Objectivist, you should favor open immigration, meaning that anyone, including ethnic Palestinians, should have the right to move to Israel if they so desire. As I said before, I support Israel and its struggle against the enemies that wish to obliterate it. But to say that it is "as free as any western country" is ridiculous. You can point to certain western countries who might share some of its characteristics, but I can point to more that do not. No country has the right to exist as the country of any particular ethnic group. I think that Israel is generally a free country, but it has severe flaws in its founding ideals.

So you think it's necessary for Israel to reject the concept of individual rights and force people into military servitude? Very unbecoming for someone who presumably supports the ideals of Objectivism. Also, if you're going to call the Palestinians "savages," then you need to come up with a new word for the various aboriginal tribes that have existed (and still exist) throughout history. David Veksler is (I think) an ethnic Jew. As such, he can fly into Tel Aviv right now and become a citizen while he's still in the airport. You and I would not be so lucky. To become a citizen of Israel, without being born there, is a gigantic pain unless you are ethnically or religiously Jewish. While I agree that Israel is generally-speaking a free country, this is a very unbecoming feature for a country that purportedly respects individual rights. Look it up if you don't believe me. And on your list of things that people aren't "barred from," you conspicuously (and probably intentionally) left of "voting." I don't really think that voting is something that should be extended to all people...but I absolutely think that ethnicity should not be a consideration.

Yes, many have. Including us. Which ones still do? Even so, the point stands. Saying "as free as any Western nation" is bullshit.

Also bullshit. Though I've come to expect it from you, as you clearly have absolutely no clue about anything going on in the Middle East. Most Palestinians are Muslims, but that doesn't mean that most are zealots. Many of the Palestinian terrorist groups have left-wing, secular agendas. Hamas is the latest outgrowth of the conflict, but to think that it boils down to "most Palestinians" being religious zealots simply reflects your complete lack of understanding of the conflict. For decades, Israel was doing battle with secular Arab regimes. After it became clear that the Arabs could not defeat Israel militarily (and I'll give you bonus points if you can even name what war that was, without looking it up on Wikipedia, but I'm not holding my breath because I'm pretty sure you don't know), Israel began doing battle with the secular PLO. Well, that didn't work out too well for the Palestinians, so Hamas has now gained a great deal of power. Which raises the question...is it possible to support an Islamist group without, yourself, being an Islamist? Why...yes, in fact, it is. There's no doubt that the Palestinians misplace the blame for their situation, by blaming Israel for everything and turning to Hamas for protection. That doesn't make them religious zealots. Read a goddamn book. Or even a Wikipedia article. I know, I know, reading the opinions of experts is for people like me who don't have any principles. Then at least read a f*cking timeline and familiarize yourself with the ideologies of the Palestinian terrorist groups. Those are brute, historical facts and don't have to be acquainted with any particular opinion. Since I'm sure that you won't go to the trouble to learn about it yourself, allow me to educate you: Hamas: Islamist PIJ: Islamist Fatah: Secular PFLP: Secular nationalist, Marxist DFLP: Marxist PFLP-GC: Marxist The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is probably the most complicated conflict of the past century. It's been going on for centuries. To suggest that it boils down to one side being full of religious extremists is beyond absurd. You have a penchant for oversimplifying things...I seem to remember you making a similar statement about Iranians...in both cases, it is just flat out wrong. Gaza has a population of about 1.5 million. The latest polls showed that around 50% thought that Hamas was leading them in the wrong direction. That doesn't mean the other 50% thought Hamas was leading them in the right direction. The population of the West Bank is around 2.5 million and, since it is ruled by the secular Fatah party, it can be assumed that it's population is less Islamist than Gaza's, which is ruled by Hamas. Let's do some math. So, at a maximum, you have 750,000 Gazan Islamists and 750,000 Gazan non-Islamists. We'll go ahead and give the West Bank a 49% Islamist population (which is ridiculous, since 8% of the West Bank is Christian). There, I've just shown with hard facts that your contention is bullshit. QED.

Bullshit. I support Israel in its struggles and hope that it can one day be at peace, but this is bullshit. Name me one western country with compulsory military service. Name me one western country that precludes people from the full privileges of citizenship because they belong to the wrong ethnic group.

Amazon doesn't seem to have an MP3 version of the soundtrack...guess I'll have to buy it on CD. I like the rest of the music anyway.

Thanks! I'll have to find it and download it now. This movie has one of the best, most haunting soundtracks of any movie I've ever seen. The subject matter is...questionable, at best, but the music is the best I've ever heard, in terms of conveying the emotions of the characters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq1mfY88W6o Go to the 3:40 mark. This is a beautiful song, but I don't know what it's called. I've tried finding it on the movie soundtrack, but none of the samples on Amazon sound like it.