[Renunciation of Faith]

You don't "Dishonor" anybody, this isn't ancient China. You made some mistakes. Now you can rectify them. If your family and friends dislike you for being honest with yourself and being true to reality, then they don't really have much worth as friends do they?

Less self pity, and more celebration. You've graduated into the real world now!

[Was Ayn Rand a classical liberal?]

She built on other people's ideas instead of making up her own from scratch and that's somehow bad? Ayn Rand developed the first principled, coherent, non-contradictory philosophy.

She didn't even coin the term Lassiez-faire capitalism. It was first identified by Adam Smith. She drew influence from many philosophers, to make one cohesive and integrated philosophy.

As far as classical liberalism: Classical liberalism means "Likes new ideas." It means to prefer nonrestrictive freedoms over old traditions. So yeah, you could call her a classical liberal. Is that bad?

Concepts lose their original meaning for many reasons, including the decay of education, and the ulterior motives of various political movements in 'redefining' various words.

What I'm confused about is...you seem to have posted this because you're learning enlightenment history and you're discovering things you didn't know before...so...why is the overall tone of your post surprise, fear, and disbelief?

EDIT: Adam Smith didn't coin the term Capitalism, so I fixed that sentence.

[Anyone else notice this?]

I also don't believe you should waste your time being "selfish for other people". I think this goes against being rationally self interested.

It's not irrational to want to mitigate future strife by acting to ensure someone's selfish desire is fulfilled, particularly in the case of family members who tend to not go away. Obviously if the family member is being altruist and causing you more trouble than value you should evaluate your relationship with them and possibly not spend as much time with them, but I wouldn't say it is contra Objectivism to say, perhaps, "No, on second thought, we'll do the movie some other time, you go have fun at your party with your friends."

[Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Just haze.]

The (conservative) radio station that (my dad listens to) I heard yesterday said he'd already done away with Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

[What are you listening at the moment?]

Loreena McKennitt - The Highwayman

Trying to get in the mood for Halloween.

[Christmas: Celebrate, Replace, Rename or Ignore?]

Christmas was a pagan holiday, the pagans weren't into the whole ascetic altruist thing, they were more into having fun and getting drunk, a decidedly selfish mode of jubilation.

Since this seems to be the place where everyone discusses how their fam did Christmas, I'll share mine!

My family did christmas pretty normally. We had a big tree that we decorated while listening to Mannheim Steamroller christmas music and we'd have presents under the tree and a big meal of lechon (roast pork) rice, beans, platanos (fried bananas), and red bean soup. It's my favorite time of year, even the silly music.

[The Motive Fallacy]

Motive is thought. Thought can not be criminally punished. Why you buy a gun can only be known to anyone if you tell them. Even in such cases the 'witness' of someone saying they want a gun so they can kill people is heresay. There is no way to know the motive of a person when they buy a gun, and therefore it is impossible to legislate that only those who want to kill are banned. The only option is blanket ban, or ban by arbitrary criteria. Both cases violate individual rights.

[Glenn Beck's hatred for Objectivism]

Are there any citable examples where Yaron agrees with Beck on something anti-Objectivist?

[personal relationship trouble]

Your brother was being silly when he said you shouldn't have invited her to use your computer. He's not your dad, it's not his house, and not his computer. If he thinks you're sleeping with his girlfriend he should ask you, not sit around worrying about "Semblances of impropriety."

Your brother and his girlfriend were both being abusive and manipulative to you when they came to tell you about all the bad things the other had done. You are not in their relationship, you can't really know the context of their relationship, and any attempt to involve you in a fight is just petty, abusive, and irrational. The minute that either of them tried to get you on one's side, you should've said you're not getting involved, and you're not going to talk to either of them until they decide to grow up and act like adults.

The rest of the problems after this just stem from handling this situation wrong. They were both being childish, and you responded by acting similarly childish. You should've told them both that they're going to have to resolve their arguments away from you.

As far as this post, and the current discussion with your brother: You've already lost this one. You accepted his argument from authority, that it makes any sense whatsoever for him to say 'find an Objectivist who agrees with you.' It's just more irrational, petty behavior intended to involve other people in something -they have no way of knowing the full context of-.

Your brother also mentioned his discontent with the medium because it's out of context and various other reasons. This means you can sit here all day and get every single person on the forum to completely agree with you, and your brother will still write it off as just the problem with how you posted to us anyway.

If you want to repair your relationship with your brother, meet him in person, apologize for being immature, tell him that even though you still don't feel you have enough damning evidence to cut off the girl, you did, and do love him and did not mean to insinuate that you chose her over him. You should tell him that you think he was being irrational to say 'just take my word for it' and that the both of them were being irrational with their argument and their game-playing. Tell him that even if he disagrees with that judgement you want to continue to have a relationship with him because you love him too much to lose him over something silly like this.

As far as the girl goes, if she's not in contact with you, it would seem she's done with you. I would not make attempts to find her or communicate with her unless it's through your brother.

[Target Audiences]

It is blanket psychologizing to imply that -all- socialists are going to be more reasonable, or even to imply that more socialists than christians are more reasonable. It is also generalizing to say that all members of the republican party are religious, and to say that all members of the libertarian party are irrational.

There is a generous gulf between what politicians do and say, which affects the definition and ideology of their political movement, and what normal people think. The main mistake I see with the 'ignore the Right' argument is that it seems to completely ignore that: A. people are individuals and B. it ignores psychology. There is no evidence that it is easier to break apart the compartmentalized mix of christianity and somewhat free market ideals of a republican than it is to attack the dogmatic socialism of a Marxist leftist. This is ignoring the fact that a very small percent of leftists are actually dogmatic socialists at all. There are members of either party whom are only members because they despise the opposing party, a position which has no ideology at all behind it, only an anti ideology.

The left may have a logical connection between its morality and its politics, however it does not follow that this will make them any easier to convince or reason with. To say it does is to ignore psychology. There could be any number of reasons and circumstances under which a leftist might be completely irrationally opposed to Objectivist views and a rightist could agree to them.

The question of a "target audience" also ignores the purpose of making these ideas known. It is not for us to select who will agree with us, that is for each individual to decide after hearing or reading the ideas.

I would also like to reiterate my previous point that the goal of any ideological movement is to appeal to children, regardless of what political party their parents are in.

[Target Audiences]

Whether or not a socialist *is* intellectually honest is not really the point I think. It's how much they are intellectually honest about. If someone thinks collectivism is a good thing, and they understand what collectivism means, they will recognize taxing the better off will be necessary. I know that is true, but since I recognize collectivism as immoral and what it requires to function as immoral, I won't do anything a collectivist thinks is proper. If you help them realize the evils of collectivism (which I really don't think is that difficult), they will simply re-evaluate what they think is right or wrong. The facts wouldn't change, but their moral evaluations of those facts would change. I think a conservative or a capital L libertarian will only say that taxation is bad and should be reduced, but not understand what freedom really means or what collectivism really means. I think such people take most facts as intuitive rather than thought out. I think spending time in front of a "liberal" audience would do more good than a "conservative" audience.

That is still a broad generalization to say that the liberals follow that train of thought at all as opposed to simply agreeing on the major hot topics and divorcing their morality from it altogether. As has been said before political parties -are not- philosophical movements. There is no guaranty whatsoever that any member of such a party has taken the time to rationalize out that particular chain of thought in regards to their morality.

If you were saying that the ideology of the modern liberal movement is more intellectually honest than the ideology of the modern conservative movement, then you would be correct. However, the individuals which make up that movement do not have the consistency to even understand the principles involved -in their own political party.-

If you want to start 'targeting' a particular audience to effect widespread cultural change, then target children. It is through the education of children that an ideology gains widespread acceptance. The morality of altruism has had many generations to take root. I do not believe it will take as long for rational self interest to dominate, however there is no rushing it. We must get the word out through every possible medium, so long as in doing so we do not compromise with falsehoods and looters, so that the next generation will have the seed of these ideas planted, and they will be that much more acceptable.

Childrens' minds must be affected, be they the children of democrats or of republicans or of libertarians.

[Target Audiences]

Philosophical precedent is definitely relevant, however not all members of the modern political parties are aware or even agree with the philosophies which are their progenitors. Political parties are not cohesive philosophical movements, as they completely ignore the first two branches of philosophy. It is for this reason that Ayn Rand believed it is impossible to spread the ideals of Objectivism via a political party, as they are not about ideas at all.

Many members of any political party will have significant compartmentalization in their personal philosophies. Not everyone inside the party is a mindless drone just following any and all ideas spouted by the party's founding principles, or the leaders of the party. Because of this, ignoring an entire group of people simply because they follow one of the major political parties which has many mistaken views is irrational. It is possible that people who belong to the republican party or libertarian party are only there because they do not know what -they- want but they know that they do not agree at all with socialism. This seems to be an admirable trait.

I would also like to point out that ad hominem is neither pertinent nor honest.

[Target Audiences]

I disagree with that premise of your argument which says that Objectivists currently collaborate and agree with the modern right and libertarianism.

If you prefer I shall ignore that disagreement as I do not think it has any relevance to your question.

I was a conservative before I became an Objectivist. I do not believe that members of the modern political left are inclined to be any more intellectually honest or rational than members of the modern political right, or than libertarians. I have met democrats who are nihilists, democrats who agree that we all can't help but be selfish, and that's why we should be sacrificed to those who need, and republicans who are trotskyites. Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence to support the claim that democrats are more intellectually honest than republicans?

Do you feel that targeting -both- audiences is detrimental somehow? I do not see why one should not try to appeal to people of all political parties so long as in the process one does not compromise one's own principles or sanction immoral behavior of others.

[Target Audiences]

When has that happened, can you cite any examples of Objectivists who represent Objectivist organizations agreeing with anti-Objectivist political stances?

EDIT: Changed "issues" to "stances" for clarity.

[Target Audiences]

What kind of collaboration and agreement have Objectivists given to the religious right and libertarianism?

[eRepublik Game:]

If you read the wiki for the Gold Party (translation of the Gullpartiet) you can see that they're sort of nationalists. They want to regulate trade to 'give Norwegian companies an advantage.' Maybe we can change their mind on this, but I don't know what else they might stand for. The wiki for the Technocratic party that is currently in power doesn't mention much about its ideology.

[New to the forums AND objectivism]

Allow me to be the first to welcome you to the forums Ricky! I am also gay and I am an Objectivist so I think we have something in common. Your story is similar I think to many others' here.

My first question is, have you read any of Ayn Rand's books, if so which ones?

You're welcome to ask questions around here, and I'm sure you'll find people, some may agree, some may disagree with you. We also have chat, you may have noticed, I hang around there most of the time if you'd like to chat there.

Welcome.

[eRepublik Game:]

I think we should have one or two people assess the other political parties in Norway and meantime everyone else work on establishing a political party of our own (this will take gold). Does anybody speak Norwegian?

As far as I can see our opposition in Norway is mostly socialist liberals. As far as making our own country, I believe our options are to conquer Norway politically and have that be our nation or find some other country to conquer politically. I don't know if we can establish our own state.

It looks like at least some of the people in Norway speak English.

[cigarettes, tattoos, and homosexuality]

Bam.

Here is a court example of a gay couple suing a wedding photographer for refusing to photograph their gay marriage:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesp...ographycase.pdf

If any of you don't see how this same bullshit can be applied to a righteous couple suing a church for discrimination, once such marriage is declared legal, you're refusing to accept reality. This is a hideous abuse of law and a front on individual rights, for individuals and businesses.

While Jack Ethan may say that a gay couple would never want to be married in a church, THAT is a generalization, and you can never say what other people may or may not do. But making laws based on discrimination like this opens the doors for abusing other people rights to run their businesses THEIR way (like churches, like that poor photographer), because there will ALWAYS be people who will take advantage of the system and make mockery of justice.

Unintended consequences.

You may say that the photographer didn't have a right to refuse service to the gay couple because she was against gay marriage. Wrong. No one has the right to dictate to a business how that business is run, who they can or cannot serve, and so on. If you don't understand that, then you are no Objectivist.

More straw men. I never stated that anyone has the right to dictate to anyone else how to run their business, or who their customers should be. The photographer in your case was obviously a victim of an immoral person making a case before a corrupt judge.

While you're too busy trying to rationalize a judeo-christian political view behind a veil of 'practicality.' (a tactic that republicans use all the time, one which is wholly un-Objectivist.) You could be spending your time and effort lobbying for corrupt judges and lawyers to be weeded out of our system. You have not at all refuted my point that gays have a right to all those things I mentioned, or a right to marriage. Your only point is that in giving gays those rights, one starts down a -slippery slope- (fallacy) that leads to churches being forced to marry gays against the pastor's beliefs.

I refuse to be denied my individual rights on the basis that corrupt looters and thieves who work the system could possibly continue to be corrupt, loot, and thieve.

Your points are all still just as vacuous even when you stamp 'if you don't agree then you're not an Objectivist' at the end. I advise you learn the logical fallacies so that you can color your political opinions with reason instead of pragmatism.

[cigarettes, tattoos, and homosexuality]

Look at this: Gay Bob and Gay Gary are two Christians (even though they're gay) that go to the "First Methodist Church" of Podunk, Vermont. They want to get married at their church, but their pastor refuses. Instead of just getting married at the courthouse, they make a big thing out of it, because they don't see anything wrong with it, and they want to get married in their church just like everybody else. So they sue the "First Methodist Church" for discrimination, because their state recognizes gay marriage as legal. And they win, because the law is on their side. So now, the church is ordered to wed Bob and Gary, but the pastor and his organization doesn't want to because they firmly believe it wrong, evil, immoral, against the bible, etc ad nauseam. So now the church is being forced to do something they firmly believe against doing, under threat of force by the state.

I have to hand it to you, that was one of the most compartmentalized, rationalized strawman arguments I have seen thus far.

No gay man I know, including me, even -wants- to be married by a church. The only reasons I support gay marriage is because if my boyfriend or 'husband' got sick and was in the hospital, I would not have a legal right to see him, if his family denied me. If I wanted to marry a man in another country and bring him here to America like any straight person can do, I cannot. There are many other things gays can't do without being married.

So, let's tally. Gay people have -actual rights violated- right now. If a gay person went to the state government with a contract saying 'I want to be this person's partner and I want our union to be afforded all the same rights as a heterosexual marriage under the law.' He would be laughed at.

On the other hand, there are not currently, nor have there been suggested any laws which require churches to marry anybody to anybody else. So you come up with a hypothetical slippery slope where some whackjob fags get a court (somehow) to uphold an idea that they have a "right" to be married specifically by their church. So. What.

Rights are a principle, they apply to gays and everyone else. Your argument is essentially 'This law opens the door up for immoral people to get corrupt judges to set a precedent based on no real law.' It is a silly attempt to throw the principle out the window and attempt to use pragmatism to shoot something down.

Oh, and your conclusion about all gays being either socially inept or mentally deficient is vacuous psychologizing, which you yourself have admitted is based on no real empirical evidence, only on your anecdotal experience.

Stop getting your political advice from nutjobs like Rush Limbaugh and realize that not everyone who opposes your viewpoint is a crazy leftist commie.

EDIT: Grammar.

[eRepublik Game:]

I'm in!

[There Will Be Blood]

I liked it pretty well. Been a while since I've seen it but it was pretty funny to me. Another movie that's not as sinister as everyone claims it is if you ignore the fact that the author of the source is Upton Sinclair.

[Spanking, Smacking etc. of Children]

I was only spanked once as a child, one time, because my father heard me say a curseword and he got angry (he's a born again christian.) Immediately after my mother came and told him never to lay a hand on me again. Other than that, which I don't remember very well, I never needed to be spanked.

Will I spank my children? Probably not. I do not believe that children are born with 'inherent tendencies' to be 'demon children' or misbehave, so if I find myself in a situation where my child is exhibiting spoiled or rotten behavior, I'd assume I've not communicated some point or other and fostered some kind of contradiction or gap in my child's understanding. I'd then work to find out what it is, and try to fix it, if such is possible. In such a situation, where I have accidentally led my child to a situation where he or she misbehaves in a time or place that I cannot stop and explain, my first recourse would be to remove the child and myself from the situation. Failing all of that, I would probably resort to spanking.

Further, if my child is beating on other children, or other people, and continued to do so despite my attempts to convince him of its futility or immorality, I might resort to spanking. I don't think children beating eachother is a good or acceptable behavior, even if it's just boys.

EDIT: To clarify, I do not believe my child will develop the extreme behavioral habits which would require me to spank them, is why I said I probably wouldn't.

[District 9]

1) Christopher, the single intelligent alien, extracts fuel from technology unique to his species. How did that technology get down to Earth from their mothership? Presumably they brought it down. If that's the case, then their mothership is FULL OF FUEL. How could it have run out of fuel, as they state clearly in the film several times, and stall? These two facts contradict each other, yet they are both important plot points.

I don't remember anyone saying that the reasons the aliens were not leaving Earth was because they ran out of fuel here. The aliens came, and their ship was motionless for months, it wasn't until the South African government sent in recon that they discovered that the prauns inside were infected with some sort of disease. They evacuated the surviving Prauns, probably also took a bunch of alien technology with them for study, and left. There is no reason to believe that they do not continuously send helicopters to retrieve more technology from the mothership all the time. They always showed several helicopters hovering around the mothership. They clearly stated that a piece of the mothership fell down from it and became lost, this piece was obviously the command module which Christopher Johnson hid, in a stroke of intelligence, as the human governments probably would've taken it and dissected it.

3) The aliens possess high-powered guns that can kill multiple people in a single blast, and they keep them stock-piled in their shanty town, yet they NEVER use them to break out and get back to their mothership? Why not just vaporize the Nigerians and take all their food?

4) We are told the aliens have no concept of private property, and thus derail trains and loot all the time. Yet, they barter with the Nigerians - giving them guns in exchange for cat food. The only reason they would do that instead of just taking the cat food is because they understand private property. Blatantly self-contradictory.

The aliens obviously have a concept of private property, in the same way a hood raised gang banger still has some concept of private property. The commentary of the interviewees is showed as very biased several times, the comment on them not having a concept of property rights is obviously an example of such bias. The aliens are stated as being the 'worker' class of their alien society, where the leader class all died off due to whatever disease they had. If you translate worker class to working class and imagine that since they have -classes- it is likely they were a form of communism then you can imagine that this working class is probably a huge population of undereducated entitlement-feeling needys. Their undereducation is probably the cause of the blatant disregard for the welfare of humans, and for their tribalistic mentality. It is also probably why when the Nigerians held guns to their head and presented themselves as an authority they willingly submitted out of a need to be led. That, in combination with the fact that the Nigerians could now supply them with something that was obviously like crack for them, catfood, made them view the Nigerians as a valid trader, instead of just some animal in their way.

A real question would be what the hell are a bunch of Nigerians doing in South Africa? The bigger population of South Africa's blacks are Zulu. My personal theory is that to avoid ruffling the Zulu's feathers and depicting them as tribal savages, particularly since the movie holds a strong dint of Apartheid, they wanted to use an ethnicity that was easier to hate.

5) Why did the aliens even come down to the surface in the first place? Did the humans bring them down, by force, on helicopters 5 people at a time? Why? That would have taken decades, if there were indeed 1 million of them onboard. And, if humans ferried them down on helicopters, how the f*** did they get their huge, super-powerful guns down with them? Not to mention that giant mech-suit. Glaring error.

6) If the only reason the aliens are staying on Earth is to get enough fuel to leave, and the humans hate the aliens and want them to go home, why not just help them find the fuel to get them off the planet that much faster? It's like, "oh sure, you just need some fuel. here, done, now leave." No need to hire expensive security, create an expensive district, and enslave a whole city-size population for years.

It is possible that the alien population was much smaller when the humans discovered them, and it grew when they came down, causing the humans to 'have' to control their population before it got any bigger. Notice that a single hatch of eggs contained several, their population can probably grow very quickly, especially being a worker class in a society of insect-like beings. As far as the weapons, the government -wanted- those weapons. They wanted to try each and every one of them out to see if just one could be manipulated to work with humans. They would've figured out a way to bring them down. And once they couldn't get them to work, they probably would have just thrown them out. That's where the Nigerians could have gone to salvage them. Or the aliens, if there was a short era where the aliens were allowed to run free, as is obvious by the fact that they were destroying human property.

Again, the reason they are on Earth is because the command module of the mothership fell off and is lost. The -only- aliens who know of the command module's location is Christopher Johnson, his son, and his friend who dies in the beginning. Christopher Johnson doesn't want the technology of the command module to fall into the hands of the government because it is likely that they will want to try and take it apart and analyze it more than they will want to help him find fuel and help them go on their merry way. Without the command module the ship doesn't go anywhere, the aliens are stuck, and the UN pressured the SA government into 'doing something about it.' That something was hiring MNU to provide private security and housing.

7) Clearly the only reason the mech-suit and the huge guns are in the movie is so the protagonist can use them at the end to create some eye-candy. They serve no other plot purpose, especially since the aliens never use them...even though they are the ONLY ones capable of doing so because they are DNA-encoded.

8) How can a few droplets of fuel turn the protagonist into an alien? Are we expected to believe that the equivalent of natural gas will do this to us? So, if I were to pour gasoline on one of the aliens, would he turn into a human? You might as well sprinkle fairy dust on the protagonist.

9) The protagonist is supposed to be a sympathetic character - a normal, average, weak-willed, fairly dumb, not physically strong guy - who is "just doing his job" without thinking about the consequences to the aliens, yet he takes PLEASURE, VISIBLE PLEASURE in slaughtering their unborn? That is NOT "just doing your job." That's outright evil, and thus an obvious flaw in the writing of his character. Yes, he's supposed to be unaware of the evil of what he's doing until he has a change of heart, but no one can be THAT unaware. No one except a straight-out Nazi thinks it's OK to do that.

The aliens likely did not use weapons because of their lack of drive. Clearly some of them used the weapons, as it shows some aliens trying to trade weapons in for catfood to the Nigerians. However I don't think most of the aliens had any real will or reason to pick up a weapon, none of them knew anything about the struggle of Christopher Johnson and Wikus Van de Merwe.

The alien weapons are very obviously described as being partly biological in nature. It would then follow that the fuel for their ships is likely also biological. It could be a tactical advantage in a war to be able to have a last ditch weapon to convert the enemy, or possibly host colony, into you.

I think Wikus taking his genocidal and murderous actions as just 'part of the job' is more of a reflection on Wikus' character than it is on the quality of the plot.

10) The private security is just the typical "evil" company, and of course no real explanation is given as to WHY they like killing aliens except that they make "a lot of money." Pretty lame reason.

11) The father-in-law of the protagonist is as wooden as they come. He's "just evil" and is willing at the drop of a hat to sacrifice his son-in-law and lie to his daughter. WTF?! No explanation at all, no character motivation given at all. Even the dialog in that scene is rushed and simplistic. He isn't even being black-mailed or being held hostage by the MNU.

12) When the protagonist is obviously VERY ill at his surprise birthday party, all the guests are stupidly oblivious to his condition. NO ONE IS THIS OBLIVIOUS. This is just a cliche, where the protagonist is sick/in a bad way/in urgent need of doing something important, but everyone else is oblivious to it and delays him. LAME.

I agree with all the above.

13) Why does the protagonist need to turn into one of the aliens for us to feel sympathetic for him or for him to "gain a new perspective" on the aliens? Why can't he just do that as a human?

The point of the movie is for the protagonist to go from complete moral obtuseness to a new moral awareness. The degree of Wikus' moral obtuseness disallowed persuasion in any other form than force.

14) The scenes of him turning into an alien become gratuitous once we are forced to see him taking his fingernails off and his teeth out. The teeth-removal scene was 2/3rds of the way into the film! We KNOW he's turning into an alien, for God's sake! The audience isn't that retarded!

The purpose of the tooth scene is to add a shocking and emotional value to the scene where he realizes that he may be stuck like this, and he is losing everything he loved.

15) The last 30 minutes of the movie are NOTHING but action movie cliches. Average guy picks up a gun and becomes a super hero, totally unafraid of the thousands of bullets flying past him, able to aim huge guns perfectly and kills dozens of highly-trained soldiers. RIDICULOUS. Then, the alien pauses in the middle of the battle raging about him, not caring whether he lives or dies, so he can take the time out to mourn his fallen comrades in the autopsy room. Doesn't this alien know by now what humans do to his kind? Why does it come as such a shocker to him that we would dissect and torture his friends? And again, it's cliche for someone to pause in the middle of a battle to mourn the death of a fallen comrade, totally not caring about the bullets flying past him because he's just bada$$ like that. And then, to make it even worse, the protagonist gets inside the huge mech-suit and in a last ditch effort, in a pitched-battle, he fights off thousands of guys single-handedly, just to save the alien he has come to respect. I remember a scene like that in a Mechwarrior video game I played 10 years ago. How LAME. It's like, "Haha, I'm mad as hell because you want to kill this alien-dude who's my friend. So I'll pour my rage out at you, taking everything you fling at me, even RPGs, and still keep fighting." We know this action trope from so many movies, it just doesn't work anymore. The mech-suit is just such obvious pathetic fallacy that I can't even take it.

If you attack a tribe of savages with bows and arrows with a squad carrying assault rifles, who will win? It is very painfully obvious that the alien technology is far more advanced than ours. The 'splat' gun seems to have very little need to aim as it's a beam and it seems to be attracted to whatever organic thing you're pointing in the general direction of, much like the ghostbusters' weapons. As far as the mech scene, nothing came to mind during that scene for me except 'AWESOME'. Yes, I've done that all before in a video game, but I've also played the Hot Coffee mod of GTA, and that didn't make me go 'OH MAN, SO CLICHE' every time I watch a porn now.

16) During the final firefight, the alien escapes the thousands of bullets using a piece of thin, scrap metal barely the size of his head to shield himself. Huh? Are we expected to believe this?

17) The head of the Nigerian gang says "I'm gonna get you" to the protagonist. What a stupid, overused line. Yes, we all know the badguy will come get him. How "tough" of him to say that.

The metal was probably alien metal. The Nigerian is uneducated, do you expect him to say 'NEXT TIME, I SHALL DESTROY YOU, BUZZ LIGHTYEAR!!!'?

18) The worst plot whole of all comes right at the end. The alien and his son are trying to escape in the command module that had fallen and buried itself underground when the mothership first stalled above Earth. Yet, once the engine is torn off, the kid ends up signaling the mothership to move and pick up the fallen command module with a beam. Then WHY DID THEY NEED THE FUEL?!?!?! If the mothership can do all of that, REMOTELY, then why do you need fuel? And, if the mothership can move, then it's clearly NOT OUT OF FUEL. What a huge load of contradictions there.

It stalled because they didn't have the command module. Chris couldn't get the command module on because where was no fuel. They needed fuel to turn on the command module so it could activate the dormant ship commands and go 'hey yo, I'm here now.' and give remote commands to the ship. Also, the child is shown as being good at repairing stuff, it is likely the remote functions were broken until the child fixed them after just flying up to the mothership became impossible.

19) Why did the protagonist have to stay on Earth? Why couldn't they just pick him up instead of some stupid line about "3 years." I hate it when plots are held back by unbelievable "contingencies." Like, oh, sorry, my suit failed and I was too stupid to get out and RUN to the ship. Just come back in 3 years. WTF?!

Wikus needed to hold the attention of all the PMC soldiers. They're not after Chris, nor the command module, they're after Wikus. If Wikus were on the command module, they'd just shoot it down again.

20) The protagonist's wife is a totally worthless character. She adds nothing to the plot or the story, does not make the protagonist any more sympathetic, and has an unexplained change of heart, which we only hear about over the phone. Not to mention she keeps calling, unwittingly allowing MNU to track her husband. What a retard. EVERYONE knows that the government can trace calls. Everyone. I simply cannot believe that she would be so stupid as to do that.

I think the wife character did make Wikus more sympathetic. I also think the second phonecall in which she took Wikus back was her working -with- her father, hoping to get Wikus home to the 'help' that he needs, as several commentators mention that all they wanted for Wikus was to help him.

All in all I enjoyed the movie, I'll probably buy it on DVD, and I look forward to a sequel.

[People who are sexually promiscuous make me mad]

It's not your job to fix her life for her. She's your ex, she obviously did something to make you not like her so much anymore, so now you have to divorce her from your esteem. She's certainly not sitting around wishing that you'd finally give up the ghost and become promiscuous, she's not thinking of you. You have to not think of her.

And you have to stop projecting her faults on to everyone. People are not all the same, you cannot guess that from one fault that you see every single promiscuous person is the exact same as your ex, and thus hateworthy. People are far more individual than all that.

Just remember that you're not with her, and that you're better than her, and all that same affection you have for her, put on yourself. You're far more worthy of it.