unixknight

Dismissing an argument based on a news source so is nothing but cowardice, closing your eyes to the truth! Unless you're dismissing Fox News. Then it's not only allowed, it's encouraged. Heck, it's practically mandatory.

PFSD - Post Film Stress Disorder is a real thing, you should apply for a emotional support dog as soon as possible.

You could have gone your whole life without watching it. You do realize that you will never get that time back, right?
I am so sorry that this happened to you and I hope you can eventually forget the entire movie at some point in the future. This kind of trauma can last for decades.

Like any religion, Environmentalism has its hypocrites and opportunists.  
The difference between Al Gore and Joel Osteen is all in the flavor, not the substance.

This is the issue with Climate Change.  The rhetoric is doom and gloom - millions of species extinct, the world ending in 12 years, no more earth for your children to live on.  And the solution is - just practical.  So, when we see Al Gore with his giant houses riding jets all over the place getting Nobel prizes while we here are planning our retirement to live in 8.5' x 16' tiny houses with composting toilets... that international consensus doesn't seem consensus-y at all.  It's just another... virtue signal.

I've thought about why God doesn't make Himself more  obvious, and I think the answer, at least in part, is this:
The central feature of the Gospel is Faith.  Without faith, we have nothing.  So why is faith so critical?
Well, Every single thing Jesus taught, especially in terms of how we interact with one another, is to be selfless.  To put others first.  To put God first.  To put aside our own greed, lust, narcissism, whatever.  Anything that we might prioritize over loving others (including God) is to be pushed aside.  This is what Christian spirituality is.  It encompasses self denial, fasting, abstaining from things... Name it.
What is faith, but the ultimate expression of putting aside our self for a higher purpose?  If God were to make His presence more obvious, then believing in Him would be a no-brainer.  It wouldn't require faith to believe in Him and follow Him.  Knowing God existed would become a given and nobody in their right mind would choose an atheist view if they knew, for a fact, that there as a God in Heaven. 
But what then?  How could one demonstrate faith and a philosophy of selflessness?  It's been said that honor is what you have when you do the right thing even when nobody is watching.  Well, if every single person knew they were being watched all of the time, how would anyone, even God, judge us?  By His existence being nigh impossible to prove empirically, only those who exercise faith in Him, and live like He knows what we do, are showing a desire to live to a higher, more selfless path.
Who would you trust more to take your daughter out on a date?  Eddie Haskell, who's the very paragon of a polite, friendly and clean cut young man (as long as he knows there are adults watching him) or Wally Cleaver, whose behavior changes relatively little when mom and dad leave the room?
 
 

So far all I see are promises and plans.  Such things change once nobody's paying attention to them anymore.  As for any elements that are already in place, well it's too early to know if they're even going to make a difference.
So I just don't see the ironclad, concentrated awesome here.

Know what the red flag is, to show that it's based on ideology and not science or even morality?  It's when they specifically block parental consent being a factor.  Where else have we seen this?  Hmm... let me think....
...ah yes.  Abortion.

Isn't it odd how medical science has been completely cast aside in favor of this kind of political pressure?  You can't get a new procedure to remove warts without an approval process but hey, life altering hormonal treatments that leave the patient irreversibly barren/sterile and show no statistical improvement on the suicide rate of self-described transgender patients?  Sure thing, it if pushes an ideology!

DCEU be like
 

So far all I see are promises and plans.  Such things change once nobody's paying attention to them anymore.  As for any elements that are already in place, well it's too early to know if they're even going to make a difference.
So I just don't see the ironclad, concentrated awesome here.

I don't buy the argument a lot of people make that say "well Superman is so powerful you *know* he'll always win in the end 'cause he's just so OP.  That argument is garbage.  Nobody goes to *any* superhero movie not expecting the hero to win.  Did anybody really think there was a chance that Spider-Man was gonna lose to the Green Goblin?  Did anybody doubt that Batman would defeat Joker?
Anybody?
Of course not.  Superman's no different in that regard.  No good super hero movie is just about whether the hero is strong enough to save the day.  We know they are.  That's not what makes the story interesting.
The thing that makes Superman stories unique is a matter of scale, and what his options are.  That's it.  
Superman stories are at their best when they explore Superman as a being who knows perfectly well how powerful he is,  and his greatest struggle is in controlling the temptation to go too far.  Think of the end of the 1979 Superman movie.  What was the climax of the film?  Was it Superman battling Luthor?  Nope.  Was it stopping the nukes?  Nope.  That wasn't the climactic struggle.  The climax of the film was that moment when Superman had to make a choice.
"It is forbidden to alter the course of human events." - Jor-El
vs.
"One thing I know son, is that you're here for a reason."  -Jonathan Kent
Superman had a choice to make.  His powers had nothing to do with which choice was right.  He had to choose.  Kryptonian notions of power, or traditional American (dare I say it? Christian) values of mercy.  He chooses to believe he has a purpose for being here, and he goes back in time to stop the second nuke.  
So challenging Superman physically doesn't make an interesting Superman story.  It's the moral dilemmas.  This can be said of other superhero movies as well.  Didn't Spider-Man have to deal with dilemmas about how to use his abilities?  Uncle Ben said something very much like the lesson Jonathan Kent taught Clark:  "With great power comes great responsibility."  The Dark Knight was a film that was packed with moral dilemmas.  At their core, superhero movies aren't nail biters.  They're explorations of the human condition by exaggerating the kinds of moral questions and dilemmas we face all the time, packaged into brighter colors and wild action.

Congratulations! That's awesome! 

This is brought on more by bad management than population size.

This is disingenuous.  Losing industry affects the people closer to the poverty line than the rich millionaires in an area.  Rich millionaires have easy mobility.  They can, after all, buy their way out.  The poor people relying on these industries on the other hand... not so much.  Plenty of examples to go by - Detroit, Pittsburg, etc. 

Thanks for the profound insight, friend.
Mods, don't you think you should do something about Mr. Awesome here lecturing Latter-day Saints about the incorrectness of their beliefs, and on the "Learn about the Mormon Church" subforum, no less?

Okay, waste of time it is, then.

If you are seeking to understand what your LDS acquaintances said and probably meant, then the answers in this thread will help you. If you're seeking to establish your definitions of words as the final, definitive truth, then to be blunt, this whole thread is a waste of everyone's time, including yours.

I can't believe those guys. What sinners. I'm so glad I'm not like that.
Sinful, I mean.

My wife @Dollfacekilla and I have been married for 12 years.  
And this coming Saturday...
...at the Philadelphia Temple...
...we're getting Sealed.  
..finally.  
Just, ya know, thought some of you might like to know 
 

I don't buy the argument a lot of people make that say "well Superman is so powerful you *know* he'll always win in the end 'cause he's just so OP.  That argument is garbage.  Nobody goes to *any* superhero movie not expecting the hero to win.  Did anybody really think there was a chance that Spider-Man was gonna lose to the Green Goblin?  Did anybody doubt that Batman would defeat Joker?
Anybody?
Of course not.  Superman's no different in that regard.  No good super hero movie is just about whether the hero is strong enough to save the day.  We know they are.  That's not what makes the story interesting.
The thing that makes Superman stories unique is a matter of scale, and what his options are.  That's it.  
Superman stories are at their best when they explore Superman as a being who knows perfectly well how powerful he is,  and his greatest struggle is in controlling the temptation to go too far.  Think of the end of the 1979 Superman movie.  What was the climax of the film?  Was it Superman battling Luthor?  Nope.  Was it stopping the nukes?  Nope.  That wasn't the climactic struggle.  The climax of the film was that moment when Superman had to make a choice.
"It is forbidden to alter the course of human events." - Jor-El
vs.
"One thing I know son, is that you're here for a reason."  -Jonathan Kent
Superman had a choice to make.  His powers had nothing to do with which choice was right.  He had to choose.  Kryptonian notions of power, or traditional American (dare I say it? Christian) values of mercy.  He chooses to believe he has a purpose for being here, and he goes back in time to stop the second nuke.  
So challenging Superman physically doesn't make an interesting Superman story.  It's the moral dilemmas.  This can be said of other superhero movies as well.  Didn't Spider-Man have to deal with dilemmas about how to use his abilities?  Uncle Ben said something very much like the lesson Jonathan Kent taught Clark:  "With great power comes great responsibility."  The Dark Knight was a film that was packed with moral dilemmas.  At their core, superhero movies aren't nail biters.  They're explorations of the human condition by exaggerating the kinds of moral questions and dilemmas we face all the time, packaged into brighter colors and wild action.

I don't buy the argument a lot of people make that say "well Superman is so powerful you *know* he'll always win in the end 'cause he's just so OP.  That argument is garbage.  Nobody goes to *any* superhero movie not expecting the hero to win.  Did anybody really think there was a chance that Spider-Man was gonna lose to the Green Goblin?  Did anybody doubt that Batman would defeat Joker?
Anybody?
Of course not.  Superman's no different in that regard.  No good super hero movie is just about whether the hero is strong enough to save the day.  We know they are.  That's not what makes the story interesting.
The thing that makes Superman stories unique is a matter of scale, and what his options are.  That's it.  
Superman stories are at their best when they explore Superman as a being who knows perfectly well how powerful he is,  and his greatest struggle is in controlling the temptation to go too far.  Think of the end of the 1979 Superman movie.  What was the climax of the film?  Was it Superman battling Luthor?  Nope.  Was it stopping the nukes?  Nope.  That wasn't the climactic struggle.  The climax of the film was that moment when Superman had to make a choice.
"It is forbidden to alter the course of human events." - Jor-El
vs.
"One thing I know son, is that you're here for a reason."  -Jonathan Kent
Superman had a choice to make.  His powers had nothing to do with which choice was right.  He had to choose.  Kryptonian notions of power, or traditional American (dare I say it? Christian) values of mercy.  He chooses to believe he has a purpose for being here, and he goes back in time to stop the second nuke.  
So challenging Superman physically doesn't make an interesting Superman story.  It's the moral dilemmas.  This can be said of other superhero movies as well.  Didn't Spider-Man have to deal with dilemmas about how to use his abilities?  Uncle Ben said something very much like the lesson Jonathan Kent taught Clark:  "With great power comes great responsibility."  The Dark Knight was a film that was packed with moral dilemmas.  At their core, superhero movies aren't nail biters.  They're explorations of the human condition by exaggerating the kinds of moral questions and dilemmas we face all the time, packaged into brighter colors and wild action.

I don't buy the argument a lot of people make that say "well Superman is so powerful you *know* he'll always win in the end 'cause he's just so OP.  That argument is garbage.  Nobody goes to *any* superhero movie not expecting the hero to win.  Did anybody really think there was a chance that Spider-Man was gonna lose to the Green Goblin?  Did anybody doubt that Batman would defeat Joker?
Anybody?
Of course not.  Superman's no different in that regard.  No good super hero movie is just about whether the hero is strong enough to save the day.  We know they are.  That's not what makes the story interesting.
The thing that makes Superman stories unique is a matter of scale, and what his options are.  That's it.  
Superman stories are at their best when they explore Superman as a being who knows perfectly well how powerful he is,  and his greatest struggle is in controlling the temptation to go too far.  Think of the end of the 1979 Superman movie.  What was the climax of the film?  Was it Superman battling Luthor?  Nope.  Was it stopping the nukes?  Nope.  That wasn't the climactic struggle.  The climax of the film was that moment when Superman had to make a choice.
"It is forbidden to alter the course of human events." - Jor-El
vs.
"One thing I know son, is that you're here for a reason."  -Jonathan Kent
Superman had a choice to make.  His powers had nothing to do with which choice was right.  He had to choose.  Kryptonian notions of power, or traditional American (dare I say it? Christian) values of mercy.  He chooses to believe he has a purpose for being here, and he goes back in time to stop the second nuke.  
So challenging Superman physically doesn't make an interesting Superman story.  It's the moral dilemmas.  This can be said of other superhero movies as well.  Didn't Spider-Man have to deal with dilemmas about how to use his abilities?  Uncle Ben said something very much like the lesson Jonathan Kent taught Clark:  "With great power comes great responsibility."  The Dark Knight was a film that was packed with moral dilemmas.  At their core, superhero movies aren't nail biters.  They're explorations of the human condition by exaggerating the kinds of moral questions and dilemmas we face all the time, packaged into brighter colors and wild action.

I don't buy the argument a lot of people make that say "well Superman is so powerful you *know* he'll always win in the end 'cause he's just so OP.  That argument is garbage.  Nobody goes to *any* superhero movie not expecting the hero to win.  Did anybody really think there was a chance that Spider-Man was gonna lose to the Green Goblin?  Did anybody doubt that Batman would defeat Joker?
Anybody?
Of course not.  Superman's no different in that regard.  No good super hero movie is just about whether the hero is strong enough to save the day.  We know they are.  That's not what makes the story interesting.
The thing that makes Superman stories unique is a matter of scale, and what his options are.  That's it.  
Superman stories are at their best when they explore Superman as a being who knows perfectly well how powerful he is,  and his greatest struggle is in controlling the temptation to go too far.  Think of the end of the 1979 Superman movie.  What was the climax of the film?  Was it Superman battling Luthor?  Nope.  Was it stopping the nukes?  Nope.  That wasn't the climactic struggle.  The climax of the film was that moment when Superman had to make a choice.
"It is forbidden to alter the course of human events." - Jor-El
vs.
"One thing I know son, is that you're here for a reason."  -Jonathan Kent
Superman had a choice to make.  His powers had nothing to do with which choice was right.  He had to choose.  Kryptonian notions of power, or traditional American (dare I say it? Christian) values of mercy.  He chooses to believe he has a purpose for being here, and he goes back in time to stop the second nuke.  
So challenging Superman physically doesn't make an interesting Superman story.  It's the moral dilemmas.  This can be said of other superhero movies as well.  Didn't Spider-Man have to deal with dilemmas about how to use his abilities?  Uncle Ben said something very much like the lesson Jonathan Kent taught Clark:  "With great power comes great responsibility."  The Dark Knight was a film that was packed with moral dilemmas.  At their core, superhero movies aren't nail biters.  They're explorations of the human condition by exaggerating the kinds of moral questions and dilemmas we face all the time, packaged into brighter colors and wild action.