Thales

Btw, I've been told that many of the scenes in Avatar were inspired by the artist Roger Dean, who did album covers for the English rock band Yes. I have had a book full of his art work since I was a kid, and there is no mistaking the similarities, e.g. the floating mountains, the imaginative animals, etc. Here is a link to his website: http://www.rogerdean.com/ Here is a good example of his work: From the stand point of the art and scenery, this movie was great fun.

So philosophers smoke pipes, do they.

It's not. You treat people in accordance with the way they treat you. Clearly the humans were the bad guys in this film. The problem with the film was that it smeared humans as bad, or, more precisely, it smeared western, technological, capitalistic humans by using a hard left caricature not resembling the real world. It's a straw man that was created and then burned down.

He played the president in the disaster movie 2012. Maybe that makes him an expert. In the movie he prayed.

That's an excellent break down.

I have to disagree with you there. That quote referred to mankind and it was the essence of the message of the story. You're one of my favorite posters here, Sophia, but I think you're projecting your benevolent world view onto the movie.

I blacked out spoilers! Without a doubt. About man the protagonist says: Also, there is a line were the leader of the mercenaries asks if he likes being a "traitor to his own species" and the answer is pretty clear. And I didn't say it was, but the whole context was ridiculous, so I'm not sure how to evaluate their "rationality". They certainly did not emphasize reason. In fact, they seem to emphasis the idea of an oracle that gives them knowledge, this network of trees. Interestingly, the primitives were presented as superior to modern man -- super modern, since it's the future. They also presented man as brutish and thoughtless. Contrast this with something like Star Trek, where man is presented as hero. It had the view that man is a plague on nature, and the implicit idea that it would be great if man disappeared. Certainly the whole mining operation was lead by the shallowest, stupidest, lowest people imaginable. Sure it did! That's all part of the anti-man message. Nav'i are at one with nature. Man is trouble. And the idea that the Nav'i could thrive without technology is completely unreasonable. -------------- Sophia, it was atrociously bad. Also there were the gratuitous attacks on the marines: Marines treating other marines like dirt. Marines acting like concrete bound simpletons who had little regard for another rational life form. The relish we are supposed to feel as marines/men are killed. It was also anti-business/capitalism in a big way. A corporation that went mining for an ore that was available at other locations, and with crass indifference to the Nav'i. It was one big postmodernist stereotype. Let's not forget lines like "tree hugger" and "blue monkeys". The movie was replete with this sort of rhetoric. This has the potential to be a great story, but it was marred by postmodernism. The trick was the set up. The context created was ridiculous, a strawman meant to turn man into the villain.

After Climategate you should not be reading anything from the IPCC. They are completely corrupt. Stick with Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, et. al. They've proven their veracity and scientific acumen.

I saw this movie last night and it's definitely anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-man. It's not subtle, either. It hits you over the head with a sledgehammer. Now, if you accept the context of the movie, clearly the humans are the bad guys and the Nav'i are the good guys, but the problem is the context is very contrived and it's clearly meant to be a parallel to man and his treatment of nature and American Indians. The marines are slandered unjustly as well. In fact, Cameron goes after multiple targets all from a postmodernist perspective. The special effects and world created were awesome. The best I've seen! I loved that part, but the underlying message is from a very corrupt and hate filled mind. I'd give it a 10 out of 10 for special effects and a 2 out of 10 for story and sense of life.

Kurt Warner had the same problem with the Rams. They had an awesome offense, but a sieve for a defense. The Rams were so much better offensively than their opponents that they could over come that, but against the upper echelon teams it's always going to be touch and go. There are many good stories. Favre has already won a SB, but I'd like to see him do it with another team.

Is Schiff comparing manufacturing overseas today versus in the past? I've heard that we have exported a great chunk of our manufacturing overseas.

Yes, this was my second point above. I think inroads are being made! The humanities departments are lagging the philosophy departments, but philosophy is the more important realm!

Hmmm, okay, I assumed what I thought most Oists knew. I've heard it expressed by many Objectivist intellectuals, such as Binswanger and Peikoff, that there is a great deal of vitriol directed toward Ayn Rand and her ideas from academic philosophers. I've seen this sort of hatred first hand in various writings and offhanded remarks by philosophers. Now, I don't believe that either venue or format are the reason. I think it's because they don't like her message. I meant a younger generation like Tara Smith. It's a slow, but natural changing of the guard, so to speak.

I have to disagree, David. It would speak poorly of these so called philosophers in academia if they were so incompetent that they could not recognize genuinely powerful philosophical arguments such as Ayn Rand's because of the format in which it is presented. I have heard various reasons for the rejection. I think Peikoff was the one who said it was largely because Ayn Rand presented an integrated philosophical system, and academics today don't like systems. But I suspect that the biggest reason is because she obliterates the very foundation of their beliefs at a fundamental level and it scares them. She almost completely nullifies all work done since Kant, showing most of them to have been nothing more than Ivory tower thinkers. Having said that, her work is gaining inroads into academia today. Objectivism is being taught and taken seriously. It's been a slow process, but it's getting there. I think a big reason for this is because a younger generation is taking over.

It's on youtube. See the link above, post #9.

To some extent, but I thought ending on "rational self-interest" in such a positive way was great! That certainly is not a concrete!

That was excellent!

Same here. Audience participation is great for entertainment, but ruins serious discussions.

If the Steelers win the SB this year, I'll do that. If the Cowboys win the SB, you use the "Cowboy's Rule"' sig. And just to be fair I'll do it too.

Drinking and gambling are a bad combination. Who was it who said the Cowboys can't win in December? :-)

Have you been drinking again? You need to sober up. I'm telling you this as a friend. The 'Boys all the way, baby!

I have to admit, I'm leaning toward those pesky Patriots too. That team knows how to win.

From my observations over the years, it's better to keep your starters in the groove. It doesn't take long for rust to develop and and timing to be off. It can make a real difference unless your team is far more talented than the opposition. Although, there is the added dimension that these two teams are playing each other.

I know I shake my fist northward every day about that.