Jump to content

tantric superman

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    6441
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tantric superman

  1. 2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

    Like in distinguishing between adjectives and nouns, for instance.

    Yep, or in deciding whether the argument that a fetus is or is not a human really changes the argument much.

    I don't think it does.  Once the entity has two sets of chromosomes it's on it way, and whether you call it a human or a person or fetus, you still have the same argument as to whether the state has an interest in protecting this entity at the expense of the liberty of the female.

     

  2. 54 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

    'm like 15 minutes into this and i'm finding it very hard to take benedict cumberbatch seriously. 

    He starts getting surly in the last half and that gives him some gravitas.  Plus Yale.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 7 hours ago, F250 said:

    He is the same chunky oddball in every movie.

    As a chunky oddball myself, I appreciate this observation, and suddenly understand why I fit in, without fitting in, because there is always at least one chunky oddball. 

    EwOKS6pVgAA5uVt.jpg

    • Like 1
  4. Jesse Plemons - I don't dislike the guy, and there is something funny about him in everything he does because I keep thinking Scaracin the bad qb is going to show up, but he doesn't add anything to anything he does.   I don't think.

    He's like the Cooler in Vegas.  He shows up and everything just hits the brakes while the audience collectively says "this guy". 

    And Jane Campion.  If her best movie is really the Piano, I'm not going to put the rest of her stuff on my bucket list.

    My Greek friend's review of the Piano.  "My wife made me watch this.  There would be no movie if they just fucked!  What is this shit!"

    (Seems like that review could be used for one other movie I'm thinking of....)

  5. 10 hours ago, ztejas said:

    Can someone explain Sofia Coppola to me? How does she do something as brilliant as Lost in Translation and like... nothing else? Is someone else to credit for that one? Or am I missing some other great films she did?

    Looking at @tantric superman or @henrygandorf maybe. 

    Dang.  I think I've only seen Lost in Translation.  Which I liked perhaps becuase I'd like anything with the two leads.  I think I started Mary A. but no go.

  6. 2 hours ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

    I like chick flick romcoms. I found Love Actually very enjoyable.

    I probably like a bunch of chick flic romcons, maybe.  Although maybe I like a bunch of period pieces (Room with a View) and movies that are really male romcons (About a Boy/HIgh Fidelity).  

    But Love Actually -- it's just so fucking cloying.  I don't like flicks that say -- love me I'm cute and you're an asshole if you don't love me.

    I mean, I know I'm an asshole but Bridget Jones' Diary and Knotting Hill didn't pressure the viewer and insist upon itself like Love Actually did.  And both had some funny fucking bits.

    If Love Actually was actually funny, I'd never know.

    I think I've got my Holy Trinity of highly ranked surly movies that actually suck (more than surly thinks) [Parenthetical necessary because Field of Dreams doesn't objectively suck].

    Love Actually

    Field of Dreams

    Shawshank Fuck You Redumption

     

     

  7. 8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

    Human life is pretty straightforward to define from a biological sciences perspective. 

    Life, as a general concept, is as well.

    Person, personhood, etc. are philosophical terms and then we start getting into debates over existential vs. relational constructs as they relate to the human species. That's why lawyers in the 18th century were successful in codifying that certain humans were only 3/5's of a person. And some people today insist that certain humans are 0/5's of a person. 

    You could scramble person, human life, life, personhood and human in these sentences and they'd make no more, or less, sense than before. 

  8. 29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    The3/5 compromise had nothing to do with what constituted a human life.  It involved a legal definition of what defined a "person"

    And, if one reads that section of the Constitution, one clearly understands why it's ludicrous to think that the authors would have remotely considered counting fetuses as humans.

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

    And you'll note that in Lobo's post which you were responding to, he refers to 3/5 of a human being.  Which is a essentially the definition of "person".  Thus the US Constitution says exactly what Lobo said it says.  That blacks were 3/5 of a person - a human being.

  9. 6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    Don't confuse the shifting sands around "personhood" with the innate nature of a human life.

    Innate nature of human life.

    Innate meaning the "nature of", I guess you are trying to say the "natural nature of human life".

    Human, of course, is an adjective, as well as a noun.  The term "human" is no less philosophical or more scientific than "person".

    If you would like to discuss the scientific attributes of homo sapiens, well, then that might be a nice taxonomic endeavor and perhaps more biologic than philosophical.

    But I don't think you score any points with some distinction between "human" and "person" in the realm of trying to define what the Constitution means.  Especially when you muddy the waters by trying to claim that people are fighting about the definition of "personhood".

    Number of times Human is mentioned in the Constitution and Amendments = 0

    Number of times Personhood is mentioned in the Constitution and Amendments = 0

    Number of times Person is mentioned in the Constitution and Amendments = 44

    Definition of Person = Human Being

    Anyone who is trying to inject arguments about the definitions of "personhood" or "human" into this debate is the one who is trying to inject shifting sands into the discussion.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  10. 15 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

    If we kill all fetuses at your determined time when they're not human, are we not eradicating the human race? 

    It seems under your thought process, it would be okay legally because they're not really human yet.

    Post 606.

    Posting -- not your strong suit.

×
×
  • Create New...