The Folk Prophet

Members
  • Posts

    12210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    191

Everything posted by The Folk Prophet

  1. Indiana Jones is being reported by all the fandom menace crowd and like commentators as being dreadful. I've seen a lot of negativity surrounding it. The inclusion of Phoebe Waller-Bridge and the terrible CGI in the previews has me feeling it will stink. And I'm highly uninterested in giving Disney any money...so I won't see it in theaters. But I must admit that I secretly hope it's good. As I was reading through some reviews by lay-folk many thought it was great. But I don't trust those. So who know. What say ye all? Will you see it? Uninterested? Excited?
  2. Well, there might "only" be seven "basic" plots, but there are unlimited plots.
  3. Another thought to add to this... everyone copies. Everyone. You build on what you understand and like, and then change it up. That's kind of the way it works. Sometimes you're just using general knowledge that's gleaned from the history of it all...and sometimes you're taking a specific idea or song and using it as a base, changing it up to not actually be plagiarism. Accordingly, I think it would be very strange for a composer to copy something and be dumb enough to not change it up where it wasn't plagiarism. That's partly why I don't think Ed Sheeran stole anything. He doesn't seem that dumb. If he was using Let's Get It On as the basis of his song he would have likely made it different enough to be safer. When a song sounds "the same" as another there's always the possibility that the composer straight up copied it and thought no one would notice...but I think that's probably typically less common (though I'm sure it happens). It's more likely coincidence. But who's to say? Law suits against stealing music should be based on one thing and one thing alone....loss. That's it. The idea that Ed Sheeran's song made less people buy Marvin Gaye's song is RIDICULOUS. What loss were they suing against? It's so dumb. If your write something and someone else does something similar and thereby steals your thunder, and thereby you lose sales potential, then there's harm, and then a suit can be meaningful. Otherwise it's just someone taking an opportunity to try and take advantage of another and it's scummy. Which is most lawsuit's
  4. You don't. You do make sure you aren't purposefully copying. But there's no mitigation for unknowingly being similar. You can't know what you don't know.
  5. Nah. I'm just glad to hear you realize there are some. I think the lawsuit is beyond stupid. But there are also clear similarities. I mean the first line (four or five notes) of both songs is like one note (interval) difference, (keyed differently though), if I recall. Still not enough to justify the suit.
  6. You can't hear the similarity between the melody lines?
  7. It strikes me the distinction is tremendous. But there is a link to the two ideas related to infidelity that have meaning. That being said, I remember when I was younger having two friends, good people, but who had to marry outside the temple because they got caught up in fornication temptations. Ultimately, after many failures to avoid it for the required amount of time to become worthy to marry in the temple, the decision was made to marry civilly so they didn't have to avoid it, and then be sealed in the temple a year later. They did so, and have been happily, faithfully, eternally married for decades since. They raised their family in the gospel, serve faithfully, have been true, etc., etc. Obviously it would have been better to have done it right. I remember attending their non temple wedding and feeling like it was such a terrible thing. Now I look back at it.... differently. In the end...due to the choices they made moving forward...it can be argued that ultimately no harm was really done*. But it cannot be argued that the potential for harm was huge. But I just don't know if the same can ever be said of the theoretical adulterous situation. *I'm not sure this argument would be correct. I'm just positing that the argument could be made. But either way, I'd say the harm from this situation was distinctly lesser than what would come from an adulterous foray.
  8. In retrospect it's a laugh. In the moment...so freaked out! Things could have been SO much worse though. In reality...nothing happened. We just got scared. Something could have actually happened. Damage. Pain. Death. All in all, it was no big deal. I mean the drunk guy obviously had some pain (blood everywhere), but I kind of figured that if it was just a bit of blood from a fight, he probably deserved it. (Especially when the apartments where we lived were honor-code bound BYU-associated housing).
  9. I rather wonder if that's somewhat the point. Kind of a "fake it 'til you make it" thing. But it does depend on how you look at it. I think there's value in "faking it" if it comes from a point of view of trying and effort rather than hypocrisy. I think there's the idea fits in nicely with the concept of "the natural man is and an enemy to God...unless he puts off the natural man and yields to the enticing's of the Holy Spirit." We're dual natured beings, right? We are going to be mortal, carnal beings. We put off that side of ourselves and "act" or "play" the part of being righteous. Yes, "pretending" to be righteous would be hypocrisy, and would be a very bad thing. But "acting" righteous even when you feel wicked is not the same thing. It's a choice of effort, commitment, and intent. In that regard, "acting" or "playing" the part can be viewed very positively. I think a big part of that is whether the "act" is for others or not. If one is putting on an act for others without the trying it's hypocrisy. If one is putting on the act for themselves in a legitimate effort to become then it's call "practice". But...yeah... even as I talked through my thoughts here, I've answered my own question a bit. I think "act" can be viewed as "pretense" or as simply "action". Whereas "play" kind of only means "pretense". Just some thoughts I had.
  10. This sort of thing somewhat depends on the time of day. Midday vs. late at night can make a big difference in how scary it feels. We've never, fortunately, had anyone doorbell ditch our house. But I know if we did it would really upset me and my wife. It's not a funny prank. Don't disturb the peace of my home! But during the day it would be an annoyance. In the middle of the night....I'd be getting my "item" out from it's safe too. (The van parked across the street might freak me out a bit even in the day....) A semi-related side story... when my wife and I were in college we'd often stay up WAY too late. One night we were up at like 3 or 4 a.m. binge watching the TV show Monk when there was a knock at the door. Without thinking much about it, I walked over and opened the door and....hand on my heart it was an honest to goodness zombie!! The creature came toward me and I swung the door shut, crying out in fear, but the zombie, (trying to eat my brains, apparently), pushed back against the door. We struggled, pushing on the door, until finally I got it shut and latched, yelling for my wife the entire time to "CALL 911!" She had grabbed a butcher knife and was cowering in fear in the living area. Okay...so it wasn't a zombie. But it might as well have been. It was a severely drunk guy who'd been in a fight at a party, and was covered in blood. He'd gotten the buildings mixed up, had come to the wrong apartment, and couldn't figure out why his roommate wasn't letting him in. Haha, right? But no. It was NOT haha. It was one of the scariest things I ever had happen in my life. No, I never thought it was an actual zombie. Just a super creepy middle-of-the-night home invasion. And, yeah, after the fact...a home invader wouldn't have knocked, wouldn't have stumbled slowly toward me with a moan, wouldn't have been covered in blood, etc. But it was freaking 4 in the morning! And it scared the stink out of us! Anyhow, the cops showed up, worked it all out, and all was well, just to finish up the story.
  11. When I was a child everyone called it N-word knocking (the actual word though).... with total cluelessness.
  12. Yeah. You really can't worry about things you don't understand. There's so much I don't understand. But we don't need to understand everything. We only need to know the Church is true*. The rest comes line upon line in God's time. And most of that we may not really ever understand in this life. *This goes hand in hand with knowing Jesus is the Christ.
  13. Things are bound to be easier for you since I'm committed to no contention. 😀
  14. Wait... you believe that those of us who are "true blue", so to speak, would not like or support it if the Prophet had, actually, said we should stop putting Moroni on the temples? You really don't understand most of us very well, do you?
  15. There are many 'old' temples that never had an angel Moroni. And there are many new ones that do.
  16. This is not what happened. Again, this is not what's happening or what I said. God's promise is God's promise. I have nothing to do with that banner of truth. God said what He said. That's all I'm saying. You put it on me as if it's me thinking I know something better than you do. It's not. It's simply where I place my faith. You place your faith where you place it too. Once again...it's not me stepping on your toes. It's God's promise. Not mine. I'm doing nothing at anyone's expense. I trust in God. I have faith in God. That's all. I hope I am better at this than I have been. I have been and am trying. But I don't deserve the blame as if I'm insulting someone else for believing that God meant what He said. You are free to disagree, of course. You always have been. But you ought to stop putting it on me and those like me as if we're driving you away from the church for trusting in God. The scriptures say what they say. I believe them. If you feel a lack of sympathy and respect then your issues really out to be with the scriptures, not with those who believe in them. And...for what it's worth, I do understand. I understand the fact that it can feel patronizing. I even brought up with @Vort how I understand that it can come across as holier-than-thou. I don't know how to reconcile that other than to believe what I believe. I believe that if someone humbly goes to God with honest intent and true sincerity, having legitimately pondered upon the words of the Book of Mormon, and asks Him if it is true that he will manifest the truth of it to them through the power of the Holy Ghost. I believe that because He said it. Therefore, the only conclusion I can draw is that if someone has done so, then the truth has been manifested. Therefore they either weren't willing to hear that manifestation, or they haven't done what's been asked of them. That is the only reasonable conclusion to draw if one believes that God made a promise and that God cannot lie. (A third option one could take, which I believe @Vort and the like take, is that they don't understand the promise. And I suppose that's fair. But I think the promise is simple and easily understood, so I, personally, don't opt for that view.) Moreover, I don't believe that coddling false thinking is good. I accept I'm terrible at communication. But if I think someone hasn't done what needs to be done, it feels the best course to be 'helpful', to help them understand that reality. Here's an example, if it's useful: Say you were trying to bake a cake and it kept falling. Whereas I understand that it might make you feel better, and keep trying, to not have a master chef tell you that you're obviously and clearly not doing it right, in the end that is what needs to be communicated to you if you ever want to bake the cake without it falling. The only solution is to figure out what you're doing wrong and fix it. The cake's not going to magically work someday if you're not putting enough baking soda in it, cooking it too hot or cold, slamming it around, putting too much butter or milk in it, shorting the flour amount, or etc., etc., etc. So yeah, I get that if I say, "You're not doing it right," (particularly not being a master chef myself) that you or others like you might get their feelings hurt and, maybe, storm off in a huff, never to bake again. But I can't rightly say, "well, clearly, you did it right and it fell anyway" because that's not true. There's a master chef that teaches us how to bake the cake. If you're not getting the results that master chef promised, then you need to go back to him and figure out what you're doing wrong. And the fact that my cake rose without all the trouble doesn't make me a better cook. But I don't have to be a better cook to know that something is wrong if your cake keeps falling. Anyhow...hopefully that's helpful...but if not, I won't debate the matter. I'm going to follow the prophet's council to not have contention. Hopefully the way I've come across here hasn't sounded contentious. If it has I apologize. I'm still working on it.
  17. From a personal perspective as an individual trying, yes...bad usage of the word. From a broad principle point of view, I stand by it.