No, no. I meant that he has to put food on his children as well as on the rest of us. Let's pray for a "The Happening" sequel (let's not pray for a "The Happening" sequel).
Anyway, just kidding, Gabe. Can you review "Rock Star" next?
Please stop criticizing movies that star my namesake, or the guy who used to be my namesake, or the guy who was in that one good movie where he had a big wiener, or however we are supposed to think of him now. He has to put food on his children just like the rest of us.
Wow do I ever like Juliet and sure hope you're right. She could survive in a Desmond-with-failsafe situation as you suggest, or through a the-nuke-sends-all-their-asses-back-to-2007 type situation (where she and Sayid are both implausibly saved by Jack's medical prowess). Sadly, though, Elizabeth Mitchell has a role in ABC's "V" remake, which has has been picked up for next season, so the odds are we won't be seeing much of Juliette next season. Me = sad.
I am pretty sure I saw "Bulworth" at the theater. Because I know I've seen it and Netflix screw-ups hadn't been invented yet when I saw it. WTF, me? Anyway, to continue my trend of nominating a different movie every week that nobody else has ever even mentioned in this regard: "Wedding Crashers." Comedies are not supposed to make you want to walk out into traffic. QED.
(With respect:) Didn't she decide to get on the sub because it was decided by Nerd Who Is Suddenly Head Nerd that she would get on the sub? [Also: I really don't mind Kate, but then I am neither a woman nor a heterosexual man, so.]
"Crash" (not the Cronenberg one, which was bad enough, but the Oscar winner). Here is my experience of watching "Crash": 1. Oh that movie just won "Best Picture," better NetFlix it. 2. (Watches "Crash.") 3. Oh that was about racism and starred Matt Dillon, it must have been good. 4. (Goes to sleep and wakes up the next morning.) 5. What the hell was wrong with me, that was a terrible move.
Hi Carrie -- Thanks for your thoughts. This reply will be ultra-quick b/c I am about to rush off to work. It seems to me that you are running together two types of question: metaphysical questions about what there is / how things are, and epistemological questions about what humans are capable of knowing. I completely agree with you on the epistemological front. Every human being is fallible about everything he or she believes; even the necessary truths of simple arithmetic cannot be grasped infallibly, without risk of error, by any of us (e.g., most of us have made mistakes balancing our check books). But that epistemological claim does not imply anything about whether the truths of simple arithmetic are somehow dependent on what an individual or a group of individuals thinks. Two plus two = four in every possible world; it is a necessary truth, and it is so whether or not anyone believes it. Now, the claim that God exists is (despite what some philosophers, e.g., Anselm, have claimed) not a necessary truth. But if it is true, it is true independently of what anyone thinks. Whether God exists is not up to us. It is true that no human has an infallible grasp on questions about God's existence. But that does not imply that God's existence is a subjective matter. (I'm an atheist, BTW; my point is that, if I'm wrong about God not existing, then I am objectively wrong). Re: the child-torture example: you are right that we believe that it's wrong because we were brought up in a certain culture. But that does not imply that it is not objectively true that it is wrong to torture children (we believe that the earth is round because we were brought up in a certain culture, but that does not imply that the earth isn't really round; people who believe that it is flat are mistaken). We have no infallible grasp on moral claims. Still, many of our beliefs, including our less controversial ones, are (I maintain) objectively true. Pointing out that those beliefs result from inculturation does go to show that they can be mistaken (an epistemological claim); but it does not go to show that they are never objectively true (a metaphysical claim). (While you are correct that many many philosophers would reject (parts of) what I am saying, many others would agree with me, even on the child-torture claim. There are plenty of us moral realists out there. But all that is beside the point. Not all philosophers agree on everything, and even were they do to so, they might still be wrong about it.)
Oh, hey, cool, there's a new "Lost" on tonight.
Hi Michael. Here are two counter-examples to your claim. 1. Kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing a two-year-old human being is absolutely morally wrong. On occasion we find some psychopath who disagrees with this, but such people are mistaken. This counter-example applies against your claim, if by "absolute" you "universally true." 2. If God (i.e., an all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe) exists, then the fact that he (she, it, whatever) exists is an objective fact, not dependent on what you or I or Deepak Chopra thinks about it. If God does not exist, then the fact that he (etc.) does not exist is an objective fact, independent of what anyone thinks about it. This counter-example applies against your claim if by "absolute" you mean true whether or not anybody believes it. I hope that's not too intellectual for you, LOL, etc.
Everyone please stop complaining. The Amazon editors who put this together obviously know what they are talking about. Maybe you have never personally asked yourself the question, "What is the only indie rock record that is better than 'The Last Match' and yet worse than 'The Ugly Organ'?" but clearly the only even semi-plausible answer is "The Sea and the Bells." So get over yourselves.
This trailer reminds me of every relationship I've ever had with a person whom I later found out was dead but whose mind and spirit still exists within a computer and virtual reality FAIL.
Comments