I don't really need to say much, other than it is a solid win. King isn't even "classic" material; its just good to know we have people (influential people) on our side.
Stephen King, in my opinion, is entertaning only in short bursts. His short stories are good. But his writting style is mind numbing. After reading 12 pages describing driving up a hill I wanted to shoot myself. His plots make for good movies though. He just spends too much time talking about innane details. I wonder if her work is bad in the same way, just worse, or in a diffrent way.
I sort of share this sentiment... King is hit and miss. Meyer just misses.
Show
and got involved in a lot of Star Trek-style parallel universe temporal inconsistencies, not to mention the fact that King inserted himself into it as a character. I think he did it better than might be expected (Roland's scathing contempt for his author is kinda entertaining), but I'm not sure it's possible for anyone to insert themselves into a work of fiction as characters and do it well -- King manages to jump over the bar of complete atrociousness in his self-insertion, which is perhaps the best that can be hoped for, which is perhaps why it's not a good idea in the first place.
Buick 8 was much better. I feel that King gives his best when he tells stories like somebody will tell them to you at a bar.
And is Twilight so bad?
And is Twilight so bad?
Yes, yes it is. There is a series of hilarious MS Paint comics that explains exactly why it's so horrible. Unfortunately I don't have them at hand.
Here's a good comic that explains what I'm talking about.
-Joni
After reading 12 pages describing driving up a hill
In which story does this happen?
Stephen King, in my opinion, is entertaning only in short bursts. His short stories are good. But his writting style is mind numbing. After reading 12 pages describing driving up a hill I wanted to shoot myself. His plots make for good movies though. He just spends too much time talking about innane details. I wonder if her work is bad in the same way, just worse, or in a diffrent way.
Ever tried reading the The Lord of the Rings trilogy? Some parts of it are mind-numbing, even though it's literary art of mighty fine quality.
There were some huge slugs up there.
Stephenie Meyer is cute.
No, she's fat.
No, she's fat.
Damn. This is like the fifth female writer who I thought was attractive, and ended up being fat. I guess sitting around writing all day, doesn't leave much room for fitness.
No, she's fat.
Also, your statement implies that heavy women can't be attractive, which is untrue.
???
Which is why I used a word like cute, which means adorable and not a word like beautiful, sexy, or hawt.
Also, your statement implies that heavy women can't be attractive, which is untrue.
No. But lets be honest here. The heavier a woman is, the more it impacts her beauty in the eyes of most men. And most guys don't want to be with a girl bigger than them. It is unfair. It is sad. But it is the reality. Personally I do like my girls with a little thickness (not fat mind you, but thicker like Pink or Beyonce). I hate to drag race into it. But in the black community, a woman like Meyers wouldn't have a problem finding a man. But white folk are obsessed with a woman's weight. I can handle a girl being a little big. My only criteria, and it is because I am a smaller guy, is that the girl not be bigger than me.
No. But lets be honest here. The heavier a woman is, the more it impacts her beauty in the eyes of most men. And most guys don't want to be with a girl bigger than them. It is unfair. It is sad. But it is the reality. Personally I do like my girls with a little thickness (not fat mind you, but thicker like Pink or Beyonce). I hate to drag race into it. But in the black community, a woman like Meyers wouldn't have a problem finding a man. But white folk are obsessed with a woman's weight. I can handle a girl being a little big. My only criteria, and it is because I am a smaller guy, is that the girl not be bigger than me.
White guys will sleep with heavy women but not talk about it. It is just something that you don't boast about to your friends.
White guys will sleep with heavy women but not talk about it. It is just something that you don't boast about to your friends.
Oh, I know about that. My sister has been the victim of that scheme. Don't be affraid of a little heft in the thigh. Trust me, there are reasons we like our girls a little thick.
I hate to drag race into it ...
Ever tried reading the The Lord of the Rings trilogy? Some parts of it are mind-numbing, even though it's literary art of mighty fine quality.
I've read all of them. Never got bored in the slightest.
I've read all of them. Never got bored in the slightest.
Really? I took the Hobbit to jury duty to read while I waited to be selected and had to put it down. Tolkein somehow had the ability to make Clancy's stuff seem exciting. That stuff just bored me to death. I always finish books that I start. This one is the sole exception to that practice. The movies were pretty good, though. ;)
In which story does this happen?
Hmm, I cant remember. Looking at a list of his works, I can't think of which one it might be. Some girl was with her mom going to some town out in the middle of nowhere and people started disapearing for no apparant reason. Like everyone had just suddenly disapeared all at once. It's possible it was by that other writher who uses alot of the same style, Dean Koontz, I think? My sisters and mother both read alot of books by both of them. It was just some peice of junk I picked up in the bathroom. This particular example mihgt be misplaced, but it isnt the only one of the type. I loved his short story collections though.
Really? I took the Hobbit to jury duty to read while I waited to be selected and had to put it down. Tolkein somehow had the ability to make Clancy's stuff seem exciting. That stuff just bored me to death. I always finish books that I start. This one is the sole exception to that practice. The movies were pretty good, though. ;)
The Hobbit? That is not part of the "Trilogy". I've never bothered to read it.
Then agian I read all the way through the "Mission Earth" series almost nonstop so mabey I'm just a sucker for stories that at first glance apear to be a set of encyclopedias.
The Hobbit? That is not part of the "Trilogy". I've never bothered to read it.
Then agian I read all the way through the "Mission Earth" series almost nonstop so mabey I'm just a sucker for stories that at first glance apear to be a set of encyclopedias.
Yeah, I know. It did manage to turn me off of them, too, though. His style was so dry I didn't even have the desire to attempt to read anything else he wrote. I think I'm in the minority on this one.
Yeah, I know. It did manage to turn me off of them, too, though. His style was so dry I didn't even have the desire to attempt to read anything else he wrote. I think I'm in the minority on this one.
I've never been a fan of Tolkien's stuff either. It's pretty overrated, generally.
We should probably build up some ramparts if we're making our anti-LotR stand in this thread, though. I have a feeling we're about to be overrun.
I'll man the ballistae.
Show
Why Tolkien Sucks
I think the best way to present my argument is this: I've spoken with any number of hard-core Tolkien fanatics. They nitpicked the movie, hated the minor changes, and squawked like parrots on the bulletin boards.
When I ask them how many times they've read LotR, the answer is always in the teens, and often higher: Twenty. Fifty. A hundred.
Except they never have.
Ask them closer, and what you'll find is that even the most die-hard of the fanatics skim their way past certain segments of the book. The long-ass poetry is a frequent fast-forward button, but often the tedious descriptions of the countryside and the pseudo-history get the flip.
In other words, most of Tolkien's die-hard supporters can't read everything he writes.
And thus I repeat: The Cliffs Notes are riveting.
Tolkien is a folksy writer - but his unique delusion is that he considered his world to be almost a real history. The details were crushingly important to Tolkien, which lends his world a weight of gravitas that cannot be beaten....
But his writing also meanders. He spends a lot of time focusing in on things that better writers would discard. His plots are filled with side-trails that wind nowhere, just like real history, and interchanges that really don't matter much at all. But like a man with no editor, Tolkien regurgitates it all so that you can see it.
There are those who will say that part of the charm of Tolkien is that his books read like history books. To which I say: This isn't real life. And worse yet, he commits the fatal flaw in that a lot of these sidelines are boring.
If his most devoted fans skip major sections of the book, how the hell can you call it a great literary work?
His writing is long-winded and tedious and focuses on the wrong areas. His dialogue is leaden. He loves his own poetry, which is cute but not particularly meaningful.
And his characters?
Hang on.
What Tolkien Does Right
Many people say that Tolkien does get the characters right, and I have to agree... To an extent. I've said that most of the work that a writer has to do is to put his characters into meaningful situations, and you're really done.
It's true. You don't need to write well if you can put your characters in a place the readers can identify with. And in that, Tolkien excels above all others - Frodo going mad as he tries to save the world. Samwise's love of a partner who is slowly growing apart from him. Aragorn's reluctance to take power, and the elves' dilemma of beauty becoming irrelevant.
Tolkien had a right knack for finding parallels to modern living that struck right through the heart of everyone. I wish I had his talent for this, because buried beneath a couple thousand pages of muck and mire lay these unassailable gems.
That said, what do we know of Frodo? He's brave, and he feels sorry for Gollum, and he's a hobbit who'd rather be home.
A thousand pages go by, and we barely know anything about the man aside from those three facts. Every character in Tolkien's books is gloriously - almost aggressively - one-dimensional, each given a task to carry out and placed lovingly in situations where, for a brief moment, you become Frodo. Or Sam. Or whoever.
I will say that the characterization in Tolkien is as crappy as the rest of the book, but Tolkien's ability to find the right place to put these little chess pieces is what gives LotR its majesty.
If you hold a piece of paper with a line drawing on it in the right way, it will appear to be three-dimensional. The drawing is still two-dimensional, however, and it's probably not a terribly good drawing at that.
Admire it for a fine optical illusion, but don't think it's good art just because it fooled you.
source
I think the best way to present my argument is this: I've spoken with any number of hard-core Tolkien fanatics. They nitpicked the movie, hated the minor changes, and squawked like parrots on the bulletin boards.
When I ask them how many times they've read LotR, the answer is always in the teens, and often higher: Twenty. Fifty. A hundred.
Except they never have.
Ask them closer, and what you'll find is that even the most die-hard of the fanatics skim their way past certain segments of the book. The long-ass poetry is a frequent fast-forward button, but often the tedious descriptions of the countryside and the pseudo-history get the flip.
In other words, most of Tolkien's die-hard supporters can't read everything he writes.
And thus I repeat: The Cliffs Notes are riveting.
Tolkien is a folksy writer - but his unique delusion is that he considered his world to be almost a real history. The details were crushingly important to Tolkien, which lends his world a weight of gravitas that cannot be beaten....
But his writing also meanders. He spends a lot of time focusing in on things that better writers would discard. His plots are filled with side-trails that wind nowhere, just like real history, and interchanges that really don't matter much at all. But like a man with no editor, Tolkien regurgitates it all so that you can see it.
There are those who will say that part of the charm of Tolkien is that his books read like history books. To which I say: This isn't real life. And worse yet, he commits the fatal flaw in that a lot of these sidelines are boring.
If his most devoted fans skip major sections of the book, how the hell can you call it a great literary work?
His writing is long-winded and tedious and focuses on the wrong areas. His dialogue is leaden. He loves his own poetry, which is cute but not particularly meaningful.
And his characters?
Hang on.
What Tolkien Does Right
Many people say that Tolkien does get the characters right, and I have to agree... To an extent. I've said that most of the work that a writer has to do is to put his characters into meaningful situations, and you're really done.
It's true. You don't need to write well if you can put your characters in a place the readers can identify with. And in that, Tolkien excels above all others - Frodo going mad as he tries to save the world. Samwise's love of a partner who is slowly growing apart from him. Aragorn's reluctance to take power, and the elves' dilemma of beauty becoming irrelevant.
Tolkien had a right knack for finding parallels to modern living that struck right through the heart of everyone. I wish I had his talent for this, because buried beneath a couple thousand pages of muck and mire lay these unassailable gems.
That said, what do we know of Frodo? He's brave, and he feels sorry for Gollum, and he's a hobbit who'd rather be home.
A thousand pages go by, and we barely know anything about the man aside from those three facts. Every character in Tolkien's books is gloriously - almost aggressively - one-dimensional, each given a task to carry out and placed lovingly in situations where, for a brief moment, you become Frodo. Or Sam. Or whoever.
I will say that the characterization in Tolkien is as crappy as the rest of the book, but Tolkien's ability to find the right place to put these little chess pieces is what gives LotR its majesty.
If you hold a piece of paper with a line drawing on it in the right way, it will appear to be three-dimensional. The drawing is still two-dimensional, however, and it's probably not a terribly good drawing at that.
Admire it for a fine optical illusion, but don't think it's good art just because it fooled you.
source
I've never been a fan of Tolkien's stuff either. It's pretty overrated, generally.
We should probably build up some ramparts if we're making our anti-LotR stand in this thread, though. I have a feeling we're about to be overrun.
I'll man the ballistae.
*hands Bat's a Cyanide capsule*
You may need it.
If it must come to this, it might as well happen here. ;) :P
Now i read stephen King as well, i just dont get into his books as easily. i dont know why i just dont.
Theres a big difference between the two as well though. Stephen King WANTED to be a writer. Stephanie Myers stumbled into the carrer on accident. The Meadow scene from Twilight where she confronts him about what he is and he shows her himself in the sun was a dream she had one night and wrote it down as a short story. And then couldnt get the chars. out of her head and kept writing. she wasnt going to publish it, her sister talked her into publishing it. after it became such a big hit and she found out how much people loved her chars she kept writing the other three books.
Tolkin on the other hand ive never taken time to read so idk
I threw Brothers Karamazov against a wall it was so maddening.
Try reading it in the original Russian.
Those are months of my life I'm never getting back.
I love Tolkien's work, because of all the little historical details, languages, and meanderings that don't have anything to do with the plot. The plot is standard fantasy fare (by default of inventing it), but the little details make it more than just a novel, it's more like a campaign setting.
I haven't read Twilight or seen the movies, but the gist of what I've been told is that it's aimed squarely at the teenage portion of the Ann Rice/WoD/Underworld crowd.
I threw Brothers Karamazov against a wall it was so maddening.
Wha ... why? That was one of my favorite reads.
Me "So that Edward guy sure is hot, right?"
Girl "Yeah, I'm waiting to find a man like him."
Me "....Oh..."
Tolkein is the works of Gamer Hell.
Talk about wind bagged nonsense. The Hobbit... not bad. Not great but not bad.
Lotr God I wanted to beat someone to death with a plastic spoon.
Twilight though is just so bad that I bet I could read LOTR a hundred times before reading -one- twilight novel. (I've read excerpts and seen scenes from the apparently very accurate movie.. Trust me.. I don't need to read the full **** pile to know it sucks donkey nuts)
Wasn't Tolkien's ideas based off of Norse things (like dwarves and orcs)?
Yes, except I believe that in Nordic mythology night elves, dwarves, and trolls were all the same thing and they turned to stone when struck be the suns light.
Oh by the way *mans the Lightsaber Cannon* I stand with you Batshido.
Tolkein is the works of Gamer Hell.
Talk about wind bagged nonsense. The Hobbit... not bad. Not great but not bad.
Lotr God I wanted to beat someone to death with a plastic spoon.
Twilight though is just so bad that I bet I could read LOTR a hundred times before reading -one- twilight novel. (I've read excerpts and seen scenes from the apparently very accurate movie.. Trust me.. I don't need to read the full **** pile to know it sucks donkey nuts)
Shouldn't you be making an anti-Twilight stand then? ;)
(I've read excerpts and seen scenes from the apparently very accurate movie.. Trust me.. I don't need to read the full **** pile to know it sucks donkey nuts)
You should see the whole movie. It's VERY uneven, with whole scenes that make you want to choke yourself until you pass out just so you don't have to endure any more, and others that are actually very good.
Everybody I know whose read the books tell me 1) that the movie was much, much better, as it cut out whole sections of the book that were almost impossible to get through because they were so boring and trashy, and 2) that each book was better than the last, and the pace of the woman's improvement is pretty impressive.
I doubt I'll actually read the things, but it sounds like they are at least passably good books, which makes them better than a whole heap of other adolescent adventure series.
Wha ... why? That was one of my favorite reads.
I was quite young at the time and the style of Russian writers doesn't jibe with my temperment. I had a fantastic time disscussing the themes and stories with my dad, however, and the memories of that I will always cherish.
On Tolkien: I Read LotR when I was nine. Yeah, don't know how I pulled that off. Had a longer attention span then than I do now. I tried to read the Silmarillion a few years ago and just couldn't. His writing is too dry, and it just makes my eyes glaze over to try to read it. Same with LotR, now. I still like the Hobbit, though, and occasionally I re-read it.
On King: I'm not a huge fan of his writing style, and I find I have a hard time getting into his books. I absolutely loved the Dark Tower 1-3. They had a decent mix of action, adventure, and fantasy elements, with an interesting protagonist some cool mind screw. Then number 4 was a giant flashback, in which most of the important characters died, making it something of a waste of time. I stopped caring shortly into the fifth book, and couldn't manage to finish it.
On Meyers: Young women like her books. Good for her.
And let's face it, while he may have used a lot more filler than he needed to in some places, at least he knew how to end the series, which is something a few modern authors could learn.
http://www.the-editing-room.com/twilight.html
As for LotR, I like the actual story, but Tolkien gets bogged down in the description. Noone just fords a river - they ford the river and you hear about the legendary battle that took place there, the ancient race of spirits that protect to woods around it, and all the settlers that were spared death by dysentery when they drowned in it, none of which has anything to do with the main plot.
A female friend who was a big fan of the books told me that guys should read the book to learn how to treat their girlfriends.
No wonder I wasn't much for high school romance. Apparently a lack of vampirism is crippling in that department.
I've heard stories you wouldn't believe of Twitards doing things to -fans that didn't like Twilight enough-
Has any one of them committed murder over it yet?
Probably.
Maybe it was reading Tolkien with my own guts and willpower around age seven and finding that I loved it. Maybe it was rereading it again and again, always finding new and refreshing details. Whatever the case, I love Lord of the Rings.
I agree with elondir: it's not really just a novel, even though it's a stirring tale and beautifully described. It's its own self-contained world, created by Tolkien. I re-read part of Fellowship of the Ring this morning, and was struck by how vivid the description is. Yes, he may spend pages writing about how Aragorn and the Hobbits travel over landscape, but it's a sheer joy to read because of how detailed it is, and how when read it creates a picture in one's head of Middle-Earth's landscape.
Tolkien's writing is majestic and timeless, not exciting and shallow. Reading through it is enjoyable, not a chore. Maybe it's because it formed the foundation of my childhood and was in fact what got me interested in D&D in the first place, maybe it's because his grand, epic world caught my imagination and still hasn't let go, but I love his writing dearly.
Y'all can call it slow or "wind bagged nonsense," but I know at least one gamer is never going to abandon the series.
Question: how come in movies aimed at boys, boys get superpowers, but in movies aimed at girls, girls fall in love with boys with superpowers?
Maybe some girls like to dream about being the girl that is with the guy that has superpowers?
Maybe some girls like to dream about being the girl that is with the guy that has superpowers?
Well, that's obvious. I'm sure some guys dream about being Xander, too. But, other than Buffy, are there any movies or books about girls gaining super powers? This is obviously a character that girls are interested in at least as much as they're interested in being Lois Lane – just look at all the Mary Sues out there with special, magical powers.
I don't know much about anime, but I know there's a whole "magical girl" genre. Is that a kind of female answer to the male adolescent empowerment fantasies we're used to seeing in the west?
SA female friend who was a big fan of the books told me that guys should read the book to learn how to treat their girlfriends.
this statement is talking about the way he would do anything for her, the way he is gentelmanly and the way his world meant nothing untill he met her. She is his life and his reason to exist. The WAY he loves her. If you havent read the book then you can never understand.
If you have never read something then you should say a word about it. You are clueless. If you genuinly want to critique something you must first try to understand it.
this statement is talking about the way he would do anything for her, the way he is gentelmanly and the way his world meant nothing untill he met her. She is his life and his reason to exist. The WAY he loves her. If you havent read the book then you can never understand.
If the bold is true then I don't think I'd like the book because he sounds like a complete loser. If you have no motivation for life and being until a girl pops into your lap then you are an absolute pathetic loser. I don't know about others but I don't like to read junk about losers.
In that respect I'm insulted as a WOD player that Twilight is supposed to appeal to WOD players and storytellers-go to the WOD boards and you'll find that people there think twilight is a joke-people over there like their vampires with drawbacks and consequences and pathos. The complete opposite of Twilight.
If the bold is true then I don't think I'd like the book because he sounds like a complete loser. If you have no motivation for life and being until a girl pops into your lap then you are an absolute pathetic loser. I don't know about others but I don't like to read junk about losers.
his existance meant nothing because he hated what he was. He tried to destroy himself many times just for the pure fact that he was a vampire, unfortunatly its hard to destroy a vampire. She gave him hope. She was his angel, a light in his world of darkness.
his existance meant nothing because he hated what he was. He tried to destroy himself many times just for the pure fact that he was a vampire, unfortunatly its hard to destroy a vampire. She gave him hope. She was his angel, a light in his world of darkness.
All this means to me is that he is pathetic. His whole existence is summed up into a person that is not him. Bella is his reason for being and thus he is nobody without her. She basically can control him if she wishes. Why? Because he is not his own person. He is nothing because he does does not define himself as himself but instead with/as another person. Motivations and being should come from one's own heart and one's own soul and not another's.
If he truly hates vampires and wishes for them to not exist then he would have made it his life goal to get rid of as many of them as he can. He would not try and kill himself and he wouldn't need Bella to give him a reason to live. To define your whole being with that of another person is just pathetic because, to me, it shows that you are not willing to stand up for yourself. To me it shows that he is willing to not see himself as an equal because he does not take himself as an equal. How can he because he obviously doesn't look up to himself if he can't have his own ambitions that are driven by he himself. My opinion is that he is scum and that he is an embarrassment.
/
I could never accept the affections of women admirers of mine of that nature because it just creeps the hell out of me. That's practically just one step away from criminal behavior.
Is it just me or is anyone else creeped out by the fact that someone (and apparently a LOT of someones) thinks that being literally totally dependent on another person for validation for your existence is healthy?
I could never accept the affections of women admirers of mine of that nature because it just creeps the hell out of me. That's practically just one step away from criminal behavior.
I think such people are usually called stalkers. Once they are in a relationship they are then called crazy and obsessive.
Is it just me or is anyone else creeped out by the fact that someone (and apparently a LOT of someones) thinks that being literally totally dependent on another person for validation for your existence is healthy?
I could never accept the affections of women admirers of mine of that nature because it just creeps the hell out of me. That's practically just one step away from criminal behavior.
Not only do some people think this is healthy behaviour, they think it's Romantic to boot! This confuses me to no end.
Better be prepared inc ase you want to use these arguments against fans.
-Joni
his existance meant nothing because he hated what he was. He tried to destroy himself many times just for the pure fact that he was a vampire, unfortunatly its hard to destroy a vampire. She gave him hope. She was his angel, a light in his world of darkness.
So the first step to a healthy relationship is to be suicidal?
So the first step to a healthy relationship is to be suicidal?
Apparently. Guys, if you want to get a girl try to first kill yourself several times. Make sure you fail or else you can't get the girl. :P
Apparently. Guys, if you want to get a girl try to first kill yourself several times. Make sure you fail or else you can't get the girl. :P
/sarcasm/Yeah, that's great advice! I'll take my knife and threaten to slit my throat, or get the gun and point it at my head! that's definetly gonna get me in a relationship with Sarah! Yay! And for good measure, after I get her, I'm gonna make her think that I'm gonna go jump off a bridge! /sarcasm/
Also Warweaver, yep that pretty much sums up my post nicely.
So remember guys you aren't being romantic unless you disable your girlfriend's car to keep her from leaving your house!
Anyways, he gave a statement that he did that to protect his daughter from the evils of the outside world, and that he made her give birth to his children because he wanted her to know the joys of parenthood.
The sad thing is, he received letters from adult women saying they understand him and support him.
Actually, the sad thing is that Austria doesn't arrest and give life imprisonment as a preventive measure.
If the bold is true then I don't think I'd like the book because he sounds like a complete loser. If you have no motivation for life and being until a girl pops into your lap then you are an absolute pathetic loser. I don't know about others but I don't like to read junk about losers.
Edward is worse than a loser, I'm afraid. He's barely even a character.
One of the things I thought was good about the movie is that the actor who plays Edwards strikes exactly the right balance between intriguing and alluring and aloof and offensive. You can understand why Bella is interested in him, despite the fact that he treats her like garbage half the time (literally, he holds his nose as he walks past her like she smells like rotting garbage, and it just makes her more interested). Once we find out that he's a vampire, though, nobody can make him interesting. They might as well have fired the actor and put a mannequin in his place with a sign around its neck that said "sexy vampire guy."
Edward is worse than a loser, I'm afraid. He's barely even a character.
One of the things I thought was good about the movie is that the actor who plays Edwards strikes exactly the right balance between intriguing and alluring and aloof and offensive. You can understand why Bella is interested in him, despite the fact that he treats her like garbage half the time (literally, he holds his nose as he walks past her like she smells like rotting garbage, and it just makes her more interested). Once we find out that he's a vampire, though, nobody can make him interesting. They might as well have fired the actor and put a mannequin in his place with a sign around its neck that said "sexy vampire guy."
For anyone who actually understands the story you know he soed this because he is controlling the urge to bite her, her blood is more alluring than anyones he had ever smelt. And he hadnt had human blood since he was created more than 100 years prior. He explains living on animal blood parrallel to a human living on tofu. Fills you up but never really satisfies.
And the romance thing that girls talk about isnt to be taken step by step word by word action by action from the books. What we are looking for is sort of the concept. The concept of loving someone so much you would give up everything, even your life for them. Being amazed and awed by their very presence, the feeling of joy and excitement when they enter the room and the feeling of lonleyness when they are not around. Wanting the very best for them and wanting to give them the world stars and moon and anything else they dream of if it were possible for you to do so. Now I cant speak for everyone, but i know this is how i feel about my husband and how he feels about me. He makes me feel like the only girl in the world and the look in his eyes tell me that he loves me with utter abandon. I would jump infront of a bullet to save him and i know he would do the same for me. It is this kind of romance and devotion that stephanie myers displays so well and that fans of the book pick up on and long for in their relationships. And if any guy wants to argue with this then either he has never felt true love or is too much of a jerk to ever open up to a girl that fully and deeply.
And the romance thing that girls talk about isnt to be taken step by step word by word action by action from the books. What we are looking for is sort of the concept. The concept of loving someone so much you would give up everything, even your life for them. Being amazed and awed by their very presence, the feeling of joy and excitement when they enter the room and the feeling of loneliness when they are not around. Wanting the very best for them and wanting to give them the world stars and moon and anything else they dream of if it were possible for you to do so. Now I cant speak for everyone, but i know this is how i feel about my husband and how he feels about me. He makes me feel like the only girl in the world and the look in his eyes tell me that he loves me with utter abandon. I would jump in front of a bullet to save him and i know he would do the same for me. It is this kind of romance and devotion that stephanie myers displays so well and that fans of the book pick up on and long for in their relationships. And if any guy wants to argue with this then either he has never felt true love or is too much of a jerk to ever open up to a girl that fully and deeply.
There is a difference between infatuation and love. Infatuation is for the most part an impulsive emotional behavior that people often mistake for love. It can get people to do things like jump in front of a bullet for someone they don't know. Love is about trust and respect of another person on both a physical and mental level. With love, you jump in front of the person to take the bullet because you respect them and trust them to have done the same because they respect you. Love is also mutual and is the seeing of each others as equals (for the most part). Infatuation is often one way and/or puts the two parties at separate levels.
I have not read Twilight nor seen the movie but I have read it's descriptions on these boards and have listened to several family members describe it. From what I can gather is the relationship in Twilight is that of infatuation. The relationship that you, Aireanna, described of your husband and yourself seems to be that of love. You may feel that what is read/seen in Twilight is love but it isn't. It is infatuation. Yes, such a thing can lead to love but it also doesn't. As you stated in a different thread, many women go for the guy they are attracted (usually the Jerk) and ignore the nice guy (the one that respects her). Women often go for the one they are infatuated with and the relationship fails because there is often no trust or respect. As you also stated in that thread, the guy that respected you was they nice guy whom respects you, yet you had ignored him because he was not one of the guys that you were infatuated with. It was not until the time that he could show his respect and trust openly did he gain your respect and thus love. The relationship that you described seems to be one of love, but the one in Twilight seems to be a relationship built off of infatuation.
I don't know about everyone else but to me it seems a bit degrading to love to refer to infatuation as something as great as love.
[post=17808664]Aireanna's post that I refer to[/post]
For anyone who actually understands the story you know he soed this because he is controlling the urge to bite her, her blood is more alluring than anyones he had ever smelt. And he hadnt had human blood since he was created more than 100 years prior. He explains living on animal blood parrallel to a human living on tofu. Fills you up but never really satisfies.
I know that, but she doesn't know that. All she knows is that he thinks she reeks. In the movie she actually checks herself to see if she smells bad. All I'm saying is that the actor was able to convey Edward's conflicting emotions well enough that the audience (and Bella) quickly understood that, even though he was acting like a complete ass, he really was interested in her, and longed for her to breach his obnoxious shell. This is not an easy thing to get across. It's not easy to act like a complete jerk and still tell somebody that you like them, and if the actor fails to express it the audience is left wondering what the hell his supposed romantic interest could possibly see in such an offensive bastard.
I don't know about the books, but in the movie it definitely came across that Bella had a hardcore high school crush, and Edward had a creepy infatuation. Bella's willingness to trust him and his family completely despite repeated warnings from everybody, including the entire vampire clan, came across as idiocy more than deep, abiding love.
came across as idiocy more than deep, abiding love.
Most of the times infatuations is idiocy, and to listen/follow such infatuations is moronic (most of the time).
Awesome
-Joni
As a sidenote: Have you seen interviews with Robert Pattison? It's obvious he hates his character. He's constantly making jokes about Edward Cullen being some sort of stalker, psycho and other such things.
Makes since because that's what he seems to be for the most part.
How come a stalker in a book or in a movie is romantic but one in real life is seen as a crazy probably rapist?
Why I asked this I'm not sure because I think I know the answer. In a book or movie, girls know the guy's side of the story and thus he becomes a sweet romantic. In real life the girls don't know the guy's side of the story so he is a creep that wants to do bad stuff to them.
From what I understand of Twilight is that it is written from Bella's point of view, which means that the reader doesn't have Edward's story to sympathize with. What the reader does have is the point of view of Bella's infatuation with Edward whom is a stranger. So this is basically a story of a girl falling in love with her stalker, and I think, doing some stalking of her own. So it is basically a story of a creepy 100 year old guy who likes teenage girls and stalks one while the girl gets infatuated with her stalker and seems dumb enough to investigate this stranger and trust him.
Not my kind of story. I don't like to read about dysfunctional people.
No offense, but I find that kind of relationship quite frankly creepy. Let's just be glad we aren't married to each other.
The love my wife and I share is based on our mutual recognizance of each other's individuality and appreciation of such. I may or may not take a bullet to save her life. It depends on what I think she would want me to do, not what I feel like doing just to "prove or show my love."
If our children need me to take them out of a warzone and I thought that I was better suited for it, I'd let her take the bullet. Heck, I'd ask her to take more.
If she is the better suited, then I'll take the bullet, and more than that - I'll try to take it in such a way that I can manage to intercept more bullets in case it's necessary.
Dying for someone is easy. Living is harder.
I don't know about the books, but in the movie it definitely came across that Bella had a hardcore high school crush, and Edward had a creepy infatuation. Bella's willingness to trust him and his family completely despite repeated warnings from everybody, including the entire vampire clan, came across as idiocy more than deep, abiding love.
Its an infatuation thet grows into love over the course of four books. And yes the books are from her perspective, she doesnt have an uncontrollable crush on him at first, it develops through the book, they dont start dating until halfway through. And theres another book , which part of the manuscript has been released, from HIS point of veiw which talks about the struggles he went through and the torment he felt, being torn between that which is his nature and his wanting to protect her from himself and the love that he was developing for her, he was simply intreigued by her at first because she didnt react to him the was other humans did, either shrinking away in unknown fear or secretly dawning over his looks, but he grew to care for her, to want to protect her and then eventually love her.
No offense, but I find that kind of relationship quite frankly creepy. Let's just be glad we aren't married to each other.
The love my wife and I share is based on our mutual recognizance of each other's individuality and appreciation of such. I may or may not take a bullet to save her life. It depends on what I think she would want me to do, not what I feel like doing just to "prove or show my love."
If our children need me to take them out of a warzone and I thought that I was better suited for it, I'd let her take the bullet. Heck, I'd ask her to take more.
If she is the better suited, then I'll take the bullet, and more than that - I'll try to take it in such a way that I can manage to intercept more bullets in case it's necessary.
Dying for someone is easy. Living is harder.
The Love my husband and i share is what is referred to as AGAPE love it is the love that is meant for a husband and wife and family
AGAPE: Many have thought that this word represents divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, and thoughtful love. Greek philosophers at the time of Plato and other ancient authors have used forms of the word to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity, in contrast to philia—an affection that could denote either brotherhood or generally non-sexual affection, and eros, an affection of a sexual nature.
its not "proving your love" its not ever wanting anyone to ever hurt them, its loving so deeply that you would do anything to save them or protect them.
It appears to be self-sacrificing, but in reality it isn't, because you are still putting your own feelings of adoration for your loved one above what that loved one actually wants you to do. It is the more painful to live on carrying out your dead spouse's wishes rather than having to endure a few painful minutes before you die.
One is over quickly. The other could take years and years of lonesome and painful toil.
I'm a little hesitant to call the action active, even, since it's clearly reactive.
I think the type of love that characterizes itself with grand gestures of sacrifice and total mindless devotion is more like eros than agape. I agree that AGAPE love is the kind of love that should form the basis of a spousal relationship and a family unit. I put my family above myself in the most practical, impersonal of ways.
Being willing to die for your family is the least of the demands. AGAPE gives more. Living is harder than dying. If you truly have AGAPE love between you (and I'm not saying that you don't), wouldn't it be a more appropriate demonstation to sacrifice your emotional needs to further your family's well-being rather than something as melodramatic as jumping in front of a bullet?
We all know you can't really jump in front of a bullet every day. The opportunity just never comes up that often. But what about your dreams? Can you give up your dreams for your family's sake? Are you willing to live a life of common drugdery day by day, putting your all in an effort you think is ultimately pointless until you die from the work, except for the little fact that it keeps your family alive?
I think that's a more powerful demonstration of self-sacrificing love and it's scarier because you KNOW you can be called upon to do it tomorrow, even.
I don't believe that the relationship between Edward and Bella, from how you've described it, has proceeded to the point where it has reached this kind of power. Once it reaches this point, any question of lust or desire becomes more or less moot. You know Edward is never going to give in to his lust for blood because it pales in comparison to his regard for Bella. Conversely, any sexual overtures on the part of Bella becomes strictly out of character.
We all know you can't really jump in front of a bullet every day. The opportunity just never comes up that often. But what about your dreams? Can you give up your dreams for your family's sake? Are you willing to live a life of common drugdery day by day, putting your all in an effort you think is ultimately pointless until you die from the work, except for the little fact that it keeps your family alive?
I do this every day. im working in a job i hate, my boss hated me and is trying to make me quit, but i cant, because i make more money than him, and i have put my carrer on hold, which i have benn pursuing since Jr. High, to have a baby and let him get started on his college. I would love to finish this last step that would put me into my carrer(an acadamy) but by doing so i would be denieng him either a child or a college education. His two biggest dreams.
Fictional characters like those in Twilight are fair game, because we know as much as anyone else does about them. Those who've read the book(s) anyway - and I've heard almost universally un-good things from anyone over the age of 15. Some of my college-age female friends even read it out of a "so bad it's good" sense. Like the trashy vamp-heart-girl novel version of Plan 9 From Outer Space.
(Btw I think the idea of enduring drudgery every day to support your family is both powerful and tragic - yet all too common in today's complex, cog-in-the-machine world. Which is why few write books about that - for me at least, the reality would hit too close to home. No escapism there.)
I do this every day. im working in a job i hate, my boss hated me and is trying to make me quit, but i cant, because i make more money than him, and i have put my carrer on hold, which i have benn pursuing since Jr. High, to have a baby and let him get started on his college. I would love to finish this last step that would put me into my carrer(an acadamy) but by doing so i would be denieng him either a child or a college education. His two biggest dreams.
There you go. A better example of true self-sacrifice - because you're doing it everyday and it's a bigger sacrifice than just dying.
Can you think that Meyer has written Edward and Bella to portray something similar? I don't think so, though I can't say for certain since I haven't read anything about it.
Out of curiosity, why is it you that's putting your nascent career on hold when he doesn't even have the start of a career to begin with? Wouldn't it be more efficient for you as a family for him to support you?
Warweaver:
It's powerful because it reflect truths and reality, something that more writers could suffer to learn.
You could put in a layer of fantasy to make a little further away from home, but most of the romantic sludge that gets published these days are utter crap. If the heroine and the hero have a personality to begin with, it's almost always about some kind of childish infatuation. I got no problem with writing about infatuation, but let's not go around idealizing it as the epitome of romance by calling it "true love," huh? It sends the wrong message to the kiddies.
Aireanna:
Out of curiosity, why is it you that's putting your nascent career on hold when he doesn't even have the start of a career to begin with? Wouldn't it be more efficient for you as a family for him to support you?
QUOTE]
because im at a crossroads right now. 1) get into an acadamy and spend 23 weeks away from home starting in august and be directly placed in a rookie job, having to wait at leadt 3 years for sinority enough to ask for maternity leave or a desk job so i can have a baby and him never really pursue anything further in his schooling or
2) both of us go to Community college this year, have a baby and move to a university acadamy next year where we can all live on campus and i can come home to my family every night after training.
Couldn't you choose the second option but instead of having the baby now you could hold off a couple of years so that the baby comes near the end of the schooling process instead of the beginning? It would probably be easier on both you and your husband.
Please man, don't let her give her thoughts on birth control.
)It's powerful because it reflect truths and reality, something that more writers could suffer to learn.
True, but it's quite difficult to hinge a story on "triumph over day-to-day dreariness" and have it be interesting. The whole point of why it is undesirable is due to the fact that it's boring and unrewarding. That's the sacrifice.
There are plenty of stories that touch on it of course, but I'd be willing to be 99.9% of them are some variation of "breaking the cycle" instead of fighting within it, because escapism is easier. Even the best authors know this. (I refer to Neil Gaiman's "Neverwhere".)
You could put in a layer of fantasy to make a little further away from home, but most of the romantic sludge that gets published these days are utter crap. If the heroine and the hero have a personality to begin with, it's almost always about some kind of childish infatuation. I got no problem with writing about infatuation, but let's not go around idealizing it as the epitome of romance by calling it "true love," huh? It sends the wrong message to the kiddies.
Yup, no argument here. It'd be interesting if we found that the X factor for Twilight's success was simply that Meyer wanted to write something with such unhealthy mores (so the reader can see her "passion on the page", even if her writing sucks), unlike the droves of other authors that churn out the "romantic sludge" you mention just because it sells.
Not that it's an excuse for making bad books with an emotionally-stunted message, of course. Just interesting. Though personally, I'm of the opinion that any author can write whatever they want; their only responsibility is to remind their readers that every part of it is fiction.
True, but it's quite difficult to hinge a story on "triumph over day-to-day dreariness" and have it be interesting. The whole point of why it is undesirable is due to the fact that it's boring and unrewarding. That's the sacrifice.
There are plenty of stories that touch on it of course, but I'd be willing to be 99.9% of them are some variation of "breaking the cycle" instead of fighting within it, because escapism is easier. Even the best authors know this. (I refer to Neil Gaiman's "Neverwhere".)
Some of the best writers in history touch on the sublime truths of day to day realities - such as the suffering of guilt in "Crime and Punishment."
I know not everyone is partial to writers such as Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, but they're some of the best anyway - and they write about things which are both sublime and commonplace.
I don't think it's all that difficult, to be honest, because it's something everyone knows about, so it's something everyone can write about. I think it's because writing for the fatally depressing conditions in life isn't something most writers are willing to do, rather than the fact that it's all that hard.
Aireanna:
because im at a crossroads right now. 1) get into an acadamy and spend 23 weeks away from home starting in august and be directly placed in a rookie job, having to wait at leadt 3 years for sinority enough to ask for maternity leave or a desk job so i can have a baby and him never really pursue anything further in his schooling or
2) both of us go to Community college this year, have a baby and move to a university acadamy next year where we can all live on campus and i can come home to my family every night after training.
#2 sounds to me like a fairer compromise between your dreams. You can have a part of your dream, he can have a part of his, you get a baby and nobody starves in the meantime.
Of course, that's just me and my preferences. You choose what you like best.
Some of the best writers in history touch on the sublime truths of day to day realities - such as the suffering of guilt in "Crime and Punishment."
I know not everyone is partial to writers such as Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, but they're some of the best anyway - and they write about things which are both sublime and commonplace.
I don't think it's all that difficult, to be honest, because it's something everyone knows about, so it's something everyone can write about. I think it's because writing for the fatally depressing conditions in life isn't something most writers are willing to do, rather than the fact that it's all that hard.
I'd have to disagree, although Dostoyevsky is a great example (I haven't read enough Tolstoy to know). I don't think it's difficult to "write what you know" either - however, it's an entirely different thing to write it in a way that is interesting to other people. For example, although Gaiman does a good job in portraying the mundanity in Neverwhere (mostly by turning workplace chums into caricatures), they were still the least interesting parts of the book (IMO). Then again that wasn't the purpose of it. *shrug*
But when I think of what's easier for a writer - writing about what you'd wish would happen, or writing about what does happen (to you and millions of other people in the world, daily) and making it "neat", I know which one I'd consider easier.
Considering the number of people who are into nonfiction and who can make that interesting compared to the number of people who are into fiction and can make that interesting, I would have to side with the number of people who are in nonfiction.
Of course, it could just be personal taste, but on the whole, I find nonfiction averages to be better than the typical fiction drivel - not including fiction that's actually any good.
"The world won't end with a whimper or a bang, but with a discreet, tasteful announcement: 'Bill Rivervale, phone call holding, line two.' Then nothing."
Then there was Everything Is Illuminated which was somewhat in mundane conflicts (it's been a few years).
But Warweaver, you're also right. I mean, even soap operas, which have the whole premise of creating 'next door neighbor' or 'everyday' characters (even if they're doctors or something cool) escalates into surrealistic garbage on most shows.
I'm trying to recall the name of the soap that had a magic puppet/doll/thingy. My sister in law loved it, I might drop her a line, heh.
The "men should act like Edward" thing seems to be the creation of women who think a bit too much like Bella. I'll never act like Edward and I never want a girl like Bella (although, acording to my brother, what the sort of girl I want is something more akin to the chick version of Pyramid Head, so my opinions might not be truely valid here
If I could find a girl that was a mix between The Nostalgia Chick and Julie from Return of the Living Dead 3 then I'd be set.
How about Chuck Palahniuk? Admittedly, I've only read Choke, but he made some mundane conflicts seem epic. I love this quote (had to dig it up):
"The world won't end with a whimper or a bang, but with a discreet, tasteful announcement: 'Bill Rivervale, phone call holding, line two.' Then nothing."
The Chuck Palahniuk novels I've read were about ghosts, witchcraft, insanity, nymphomania and sexual obsession, terrorism, necrophilia, and cults. It was also always pretty obvious that the primary plotline was meant to be understood primarily as a metaphor. There are sometimes some mundane conflicts on the periphery, such as alzheimers, SIDS, boredom, and loneliness, buthis books are pretty fantastical in my experience.
Couldn't you choose the second option but instead of having the baby now you could hold off a couple of years so that the baby comes near the end of the schooling process instead of the beginning? It would probably be easier on both you and your husband.
it would be eaiseir for us now so that by the time we go away to university the child is a year old and able to be in day care and home head start. Plus once i start into university it puts kids on hold for like 5 -7 years due to my carrer choice (criminal justice) its a 2 year 'acadamy' there. and very physically demanding. Plus emotionally we both need to do this. We HAD decided not to have kids till I was well grounded in my carrer but We became pregnant 3 monthes ago by accident and realized that we really did want a kid. We had been supressing the want to focus on carrer, and it was making us unhappy. those few weeks before i misscarried were the best weeks of our marriage.
although, acording to my brother, what the sort of girl I want is something more akin to the chick version of Pyramid Head, so my opinions might not be truely valid here )
this made me laugh hysterically lol
it would be eaiseir for us now so that by the time we go away to university the child is a year old and able to be in day care and home head start. Plus once i start into university it puts kids on hold for like 5 -7 years due to my carrer choice (criminal justice) its a 2 year 'acadamy' there. and very physically demanding. Plus emotionally we both need to do this. We HAD decided not to have kids till I was well grounded in my carrer but We became pregnant 3 monthes ago by accident and realized that we really did want a kid. We had been supressing the want to focus on carrer, and it was making us unhappy. those few weeks before i misscarried were the best weeks of our marriage.
Sorry to hear about the miscarriage. Hope your plans go as well as you hope they will.
Second, if both partners are willing to jump in front of a bullet to save the other, it's a damned good way to make sure you both die. ;) (Yes, it's a lame joke. :P)
I'm sorry there is no way in hell a sentient being would stay a virgin that long. Especially one with the apparent ability to snag up attentions of females at will."But it makes him romantic" BS. It makes him inane, and just demonstrates further how much a Loser he is that Fails At Life, because he won't even acknowledge sex as a basic need.
I don't care how old he looks, he's still 108 years old. And she's still 17 or whatever. And how dumb is he? What the **** would a 17 year old girl have to offer a man of 108 years? Will they watch MTV together? Maybe he'll take her new bike shopping or pick her up a set of heelies for their one-week anniversary. I sure hope she doesn't get caught passing a note to him in class. That might be ok, though, cuz then they could hang out in detention and stare at each other with moon eyes. Do you think their first date will be McDonald's and a trip to the cineplex to watch He's Not That Into You? As long as he gets her back by 10pm, it'll probably be ok. Do they hold hands at the pep rally before the big game? Can you imagine a 108 year old man listening to Miley Cyrus? Cuz you know she makes him. A 108 year old high school ****. Nice.
Wow. I meant that to be a line or two. It was just too damned easy to come up with that stuff. ;)
ZB, not only is there a gap of 100 years between them but vampires are also dead. Bella is robing the grave. I think she likes to experience a little rigger mortis. ;)
108, and allegedly he was a virgin.
"But it makes him romantic" BS. It makes him inane, and just demonstrates further how much a Loser he is that Fails At Life, because he won't even acknowledge sex as a basic need.
I'm going to have to object to your statement, in the sense of your disparagement of those who live their life without sex. It doesn't make them losers by default. Especially if that's the life they chose to live (ala monks and such).
Seriously, if someone dies without having sex, it's not the worst thing in the world. Far from it. It's not a "basic need".
The Chuck Palahniuk novels I've read were about ghosts, witchcraft, insanity, nymphomania and sexual obsession, terrorism, necrophilia, and cults.
You just summed up a standard day in my life.
if someone dies without having sex, it's not the worst thing in the world.
Correct. The lack of sex is not the worst part. I'd have to say that the worst part about this is the death.
Correct. The lack of sex is not the worst part. I'd have to say that the worst part about this is the death.
Point. Not precisely what I meant, but point.
I'm going to have to object to your statement, in the sense of your disparagement of those who live their life without sex. It doesn't make them losers by default. Especially if that's the life they chose to live (ala monks and such).
Seriously, if someone dies without having sex, it's not the worst thing in the world. Far from it. It's not a "basic need".
Making a choice to live without is one thing. Because at that point you are denying a basic need for a purpose (even if morally to me it makes no sense what so ever).
Living without sex because you can't get over your own emoness? That's another.
apparently Edward is in school so that the vampires can fit into the community as a family. I've been told that they live in a place for a few years and during this time Edward goes to school. After a few years the vampires move and start it all over again.
ZB, not only is there a gap of 100 years between them but vampires are also dead. Bella is robing the grave. I think she likes to experience a little rigger mortis. ;)
More proof this entire concept is moronic drivel. They couldn't just say he's friggin' home-schooled? 108 years "alive" and the idiot couldn't figure that out ... or 108 years old and still interested in the goings-on of teenagers. What a douche.
Cradle Robber meets Grave Robber, it's a star crossed love affair for the ages! It's perfect, because they are so beautiful physically!
That's a great friggin' angle! I like it. :D
We should make a sequel. We'll just use carboard cut-outs and kissing sounds to save on cash. It's not like there's any real content we'd be missing. ;)
Making a choice to live without is one thing. Because at that point you are denying a basic need for a purpose (even if morally to me it makes no sense what so ever).
Living without sex because you can't get over your own emoness? That's another.
I guess I don't see it as a basic need. But then, I define "basic need" as: air, water, food, shelter. I can't really speak to why it would or wouldn't make sense morally to you here due to board restrictions. Even assuming "human contact" is a "basic need", I still don't see sex as so essential and basic. But then, my view of sex puts it in a very particular place in one's overall life, so that's likely coloring my view quite a bit.
But to a degree, you're right on the "not getting over emoness" part. ;)
It doesn't explain why somebody who is hundreds of years old would choose to attend high school every decade, though.
And I would agree that sex isn't a "basic need". There is too much to see and do to focus on a few minutes of calisthenics followed by an endorphin release.
Air is a basic need. Water is a basic need. Sex is not. It's needed for the propogation of our species, but you can just not have sex and be perfectly fine.
My opinions on the subject are somewhat close to Buddhist philosophy: It is desire that causes suffering, not the lack of the act itself. Suffering ends when you let go of your desire.
If sex wasn't a basic need, the earth would be a lifeless wasteland.
Sex is a basic need for populations, not individuals.
That said, post-pubescent individuals with no sexual history are definitely aberrant. There's nothing wrong with them necessarily, but they are rare.
New topic: Why do 13 year old girls like such terrible movies, TV shows, music, and games?
Precisely because they are thirteen years old. They just haven't lived long enough to know better. That's why I have a special place in my pity-zone for those older people that like the same sorts of things even after experiencing enough to understand how awful they really are.
I don't understand the need for people to bash Twilight so much. I didn't read it, and it doesn't sound like a book I would like, but I'm not about to go into it and point out the flaws. You can do that with anything. A lot of people enjoyed Twilight, I say let them enjoy it and stop trying to over think it.
You'd understand if you ever had a girl ask you to play a character that is "just like Edward".
New topic: Why do 13 year old girls like such terrible movies, TV shows, music, and games?
They have the sam excuse as 13-year-old boys: hormones. Hormones, hormones, hormones. It's impossible to care about art when you are suddeny finding yourself overwhelmed with lust for the first time ever.
But that's no fun, Stompie. No fun at all. ;) :P
So true, but I have been known to be ever so boring.
So true, but I have been known to be ever so boring.
If you hang out in the Tavern, you're probably not boring. :D
I don't care how old he looks, he's still 108 years old. And she's still 17 or whatever. And how dumb is he? What the **** would a 17 year old girl have to offer a man of 108 years? Will they watch MTV together? Maybe he'll take her new bike shopping or pick her up a set of heelies for their one-week anniversary. I sure hope she doesn't get caught passing a note to him in class.
But they're soooooouuuuullll maaaaaaatttteeeesss...I'm sure he's "waited a century for someone like her" or some BS.
Funny thing about the "soulmates" line - I'd believe it if it was two teenagers or two older people. Why? Because you're either a) too young to know better, or b) old enough to tell for sure (if you believe in soul mates). But this discrepancy? Please. There is no way a 108 year old actually believes a teenager knows what she wants. It's predator-prey girl porn.
Precisely because they are thirteen years old. They just haven't lived long enough to know better. That's why I have a special place in my pity-zone for those older people that like the same sorts of things even after experiencing enough to understand how awful they really are.
+1
How come it's the guy who is the centuries-old vampire and not the girl who falls in love with some pimply-faced almost-man who's voice is about to change?
I wondered that myself. Not to defend Twilight, but what if Edward the 'high school student' hooked up with a 80 year old? A fairly attractive milf? Anyone that looked outside of a compatible age category? Somehow, it would be equally unattractive as a pedo vampire hanging around high schools for hundreds of years.
How come it's the guy who is the centuries-old vampire and not the girl who falls in love with some pimply-faced almost-man who's voice is about to change?
Edward is young because he was changed to a vampire when he was young (as I believe I've been told) and thus will look young for the rest of his days.
Why aren't the roles reversed. I mean hell if she did that I'd actually notice the work as being some what "original" then. "But that's not hawt!"
And that right there sums up Twilight.
But they're soooooouuuuullll maaaaaaatttteeeesss...I'm sure he's "waited a century for someone like her" or some BS.
Funny thing about the "soulmates" line - I'd believe it if it was two teenagers or two older people. Why? Because you're either a) too young to know better, or b) old enough to tell for sure (if you believe in soul mates). But this discrepancy? Please. There is no way a 108 year old actually believes a teenager knows what she wants. It's predator-prey girl porn.
It just baffles me that people would look at this obvious crap and still enjoy it. I'm 30. You know what a 17 year old girl could offer me in the way of "soul-mate" style companionship? Nothing. But somehow she's perfect for this 108 year old pedo. Got it.
A 17 year old person is not even who they are yet - if that makes any kind of sense. I'm guessing if you're over 25 you'll get it, but I could be wrong. Anywhoo ... there's no way she'd be perfect for him or anyone at 17. She doesn't even know who she is yet. Pathetic teenage angsty drivel. The worst kind. ;)
What wordserpent is asking is why isn't it Bella who is the centuries old vampire girl falling in love with a pimply faced almost man who's voice is about to change.
The answer is that it is a teen girl romance novel and the girls need a human teen to relate to. It is about the girl finding her knight in shining armor and being the knight in shining armor. It is about the teen feeling like there is a guy who is trying to understand and protect her, and not her being the protector.
The answer is that it is a teen girl romance novel and the girls need a human teen to relate to. It is about the girl finding her knight in shining armor and being the knight in shining armor. It is about the teen feeling like there is a guy who is trying to understand and protect her, and not her being the protector.
Please, he is as understanding as the turds that come out of my ass when I take a dump. He's not really protecting her either so much as isolating her.. from whatever it was that made her human in the first place.
It'd be one thing if Edward was actually anything that his fans say he is, but he isn't. He's a creepy stalker psuedo axe murderer that some how is mistaken for being romantic.
He's not really protecting her either so much as isolating her.. from whatever it was that made her human in the first place.
and to many women this is often equated to protecting and thoughtful.
It'd be one thing if Edward was actually anything that his fans say he is, but he isn't. He's a creepy stalker psuedo axe murderer that some how is mistaken for being romantic.
and pseudo axe murderer behavior seems to often equate to romance because it means that he cares.
and pseudo axe murderer behavior seems to often equate to romance because it means that he cares.
That's why whenever I get serious about a girl, I kill her cat. Let's her know I really love her.
That's why whenever I get serious about a girl, I kill her cat. Let's her know I really love her.
You're supposed to kill her brother's dog that never liked her much anyway.
Women love their cats.
You're supposed to kill her brother's dog that never liked her much anyway.
Women love their cats.
That's the point though. When I kill her cat, she sees that I want to be the only thing in her life that she loves. It's a romantic jealous overreaction to her love for her cat. Chicks dig it when you get all murderously enraged when they like something other than you. And, if she doesn't like it, she'll know what'll happen to her if she ever leaves you. Or even thinks about it. Or talks to her friends. Or leaves her house. Hmm ... it may just be better to kill her, too. As long as you eat part of her, your love will last forever. How's that for romance! :P
That's why whenever I get serious about a girl, I kill her cat. Let's her know I really love her.
In real life such behavior means you're a bad person but in a movie or book it means that your are a very loving guy......or something. I've yet to find a girl that could explain this stuff to me. The answer is often something like, "it is because it is.," which doesn't explain much.
That's the point though. When I kill her cat, she sees that I want to be the only thing in her life that she loves. It's a romantic jealous overreaction to her love for her cat. Chicks dig it when you get all murderously enraged when they like something other than you. And, if she doesn't like it, she'll know what'll happen to her if she ever leaves you. Or even thinks about it. Or talks to her friends. Or leaves her house. Hmm ... it may just be better to kill her, too. As long as you eat part of her, your love will last forever. How's that for romance! :P
Using Twitard logic that's perfect love. Man I've been doing it wrong!
In real life such behavior means you're a bad person but in a movie or book it means that your are a very loving guy......or something. I've yet to find a girl that could explain this stuff to me. The answer is often something like, "it is because it is.," which doesn't explain much.
Yeah, all the crap you know better than to even think about is 100% ok if it's done by a hot 108 year old pedo. Why? Uhh ...
Using Twitard logic that's perfect love. Man I've been doing it wrong!
Yes you have. The best way to get a chick is to hang out at the local vet office on the cat side. Dogs can be big and tough and - unlike cats - they actually have souls so you'll want to stay away from them. Then just wait for a hot chicky with a sick cat to come in and then tail her home. Try to find one that has a really sick cat or one with broken front paws. It's easier to kill a cat with cancer or one that's gimped. They can't fight back so well. Once you follow her home, start screaming your love for her loudly and very publicly. Make a huge scene. When she tells you to leave or threatens to call the cops, break into her house. It's her way of inviting you. And you must be invited first since you're a vampire. Did I foget that part? Oh well. Once inside, eviscerate her cat right in front of her and throw the guts all over the wall. Then use the sticky intestines to spell her name and surround it with a heart drawn from blood. If you do this and do it properly, she'll ask you to marry her on the spot. After she ... well ... does something sexy to you. Trust me, it works. ;)
Can I just rip off my angel wings instead?
this made me laugh hysterically lol
Glad I'm useful for something
And if sex WAS a basic need, we'd have bunches of dead priests, shaolin monks, nuns, etc.
Air is a basic need. Water is a basic need. Sex is not. It's needed for the propogation of our species, but you can just not have sex and be perfectly fine.
Sex(specifically reproduction) is pretty much the point of life. We may have religion, culture, and technology but in the end we are just another type of animal.
Sex(specifically reproduction) is pretty much the point of life. We may have religion, culture, and technology but in the end we are just another type of animal.
We now have the technology to reproduce without sex, so it isn't really necessary for the survival of the species. I'm sure that some time in the next 100 years someone will clone a human at which point we humans will really not need sex to reproduce. If teleporting technology gets off the ground then clones can be mass produced because a persons information is stored in the system when teleported. In the future sex may end up as something that is for purposes of pleasure only because it would end up being completely unnecessary for reproduction. It may also end up being a less successful form of reproduction too.
In the future sex may end up as something that is for purposes of pleasure only because it would end up being completely unnecessary for reproduction. It may also end up being a less successful form of reproduction too.
Well, making the majority of your race outta clones opens them up to a host of external and internal weaknesses (genetic flaws, lack of natural immunities to disease, etc.) - but we could still reproduce the "old fashioned way" without sex (ex-vitro fertilization or whatever it's being called).
We now have the technology to reproduce without sex, so it isn't really necessary for the survival of the species. I'm sure that some time in the next 100 years someone will clone a human at which point we humans will really not need sex to reproduce. If teleporting technology gets off the ground then clones can be mass produced because a persons information is stored in the system when teleported. In the future sex may end up as something that is for purposes of pleasure only because it would end up being completely unnecessary for reproduction. It may also end up being a less successful form of reproduction too.
I seriously doubt technology replacing sex as the primary means of reproduction at any point in the future. Assisting reproduction? Definitely.
We now have the technology to reproduce without sex, so it isn't really necessary for the survival of the species. I'm sure that some time in the next 100 years someone will clone a human at which point we humans will really not need sex to reproduce. If teleporting technology gets off the ground then clones can be mass produced because a persons information is stored in the system when teleported. In the future sex may end up as something that is for purposes of pleasure only because it would end up being completely unnecessary for reproduction. It may also end up being a less successful form of reproduction too.
The far, far, far future of science fiction, maybe.
But again, reproduction is the point of life for populations. Individuals are free to make the point of their life anything they please, and if that means abstaining from sex, the harm to the gene pool will most likely be minimal.
Well, making the majority of your race outta clones opens them up to a host of external and internal weaknesses (genetic flaws, lack of natural immunities to disease, etc.) - but we could still reproduce the "old fashioned way" without sex (ex-vitro fertilization or whatever it's being called).
You mean that it could expose us to weaknesses that we already have?
Sex would probably not be stopped completely, although some societies may abandon sex to reproduce by other means because it would help prevent transmission of STDs and can be a way to avoid pregnancy complications. It would also likely be possible that we would no longer have to worry about things like miscarriages and deformities. With benefits like this some societies would likely switch to it within the future and likely deem it a civilized practice.
It doesn't really matter how many of us humans there are because with all of us on one rock in the sky, our entire civilization/population can be destroyed easily with many different possible cosmic disasters. Also, things like cloning and genetic modification through biological and mechanical means are not too far into the future. It is really only a matter of time before such things become standard practice. It may not to far into the future before we have self replicating robots that we could use for many of our day to day thing and exploration of our oceans and of space.
Sex would probably not be stopped completely, although some societies may abandon sex to reproduce by other means because it would help prevent transmission of STDs and can be a way to avoid pregnancy complications. It would also likely be possible that we would no longer have to worry about things like miscarriages and deformities. With benefits like this some societies would likely switch to it within the future and likely deem it a civilized practice.
Unless you believe in some kind of GM singularity, we're still talking centuries into the future here. Cloning for a sexual species is a stupid way to reproduce. It pretty much negates all of the evolutionary benefits of sex. Permanently altering the expressive genes of an entire organism as complex as an adult human without killing them may well be impossible, and even if it is possible, would necessarily carry unforeseeable consequences if that organism were to continue to reproduce sexually. In vitro fertilization is expensive, time consuming, and dangerous. That may improve, but we are leaps and bounds away from making it more efficient than two eighteen year olds in a Volvo, and to my knowledge there isn't even a proposed method for raising a fetus outside of a mother's body, so complications during pregnancy remain a problem. I believe the full interaction between fetus and mother isn't even fully understood yet.
I'm not sure we're you're going with the robot stuff. I doubt there are many people out there who would choose to remain sexless or childless because there are robots exploring the oceans.
Unless you believe in some kind of GM singularity, we're still talking centuries into the future here. Cloning for a sexual species is a stupid way to reproduce. It pretty much negates all of the evolutionary benefits of sex. Permanently altering the expressive genes of an entire organism as complex as an adult human without killing them may well be impossible, and even if it is possible, would necessarily carry unforeseeable consequences if that organism were to continue to reproduce sexually. In vitro fertilization is expensive, time consuming, and dangerous. That may improve, but we are leaps and bounds away from making it more efficient than two eighteen year olds in a Volvo, and to my knowledge there isn't even a proposed method for raising a fetus outside of a mother's body, so complications during pregnancy remain a problem. I believe the full interaction between fetus and mother isn't even fully understood yet.
I'm not sure we're you're going with the robot stuff. I doubt there are many people out there who would choose to remain sexless or childless because there are robots exploring the oceans.
I never said any of this was necessarily a good idea but it is where we are headed.
With the robot stuff we will have robots that can self replicate and will be used to explore our entire world, universe and biological beings. There are some that believe that one of the next steps in human technology is to live with chips hooked up to our brains to increase our brain's efficiency. It would also likely allow for use to access the internet and such by thought. The next step would be for us to download our personality/self to a robot so that we can live forever. This would allow for us to reproduce without sex. Also we would be able to go where no man has gone before since a robotic body could handle more extreme situations/environments than a human body can.
Again, I'm not saying that this is a necessarily a good idea but there are some, mainly those into robotics, that believe that this is the future of the human race.
You mean that it could expose us to weaknesses that we already have?
We evolve in tandem with our environment. If we ceased evolving, but our environment continued to become more effective at killing us, some people might consider a problem.
We evolve in tandem with our environment. If we ceased evolving, but our environment continued to become more effective at killing us, some people might consider a problem.
If we are able to clone with near perfect accuracy then we will likely be able to change our base DNA code if need be causing a forced evolution. In doing so we can cause ourselves to evolve and adapt to things much quicker than before helping us be more immune and tolerant to more things.
I don't quite see how genetic engineering and such will stop evolution. If it stops naturally then it will be forced in the direction that we desire and need to go.
I never said any of this was necessarily a good idea but it is where we are headed.
With the robot stuff we will have robots that can self replicate and will be used to explore our entire world, universe and biological beings. There are some that believe that one of the next steps in human technology is to live with chips hooked up to our brains to increase our brain's efficiency. It would also likely allow for use to access the internet and such by thought. The next step would be for us to download our personality/self to a robot so that we can live forever. This would allow for us to reproduce without sex. Also we would be able to go where no man has gone before since a robotic body could handle more extreme situations/environments than a human body can.
Again, I'm not saying that this is a necessarily a good idea but there are some, mainly those into robotics, that believe that this is the future of the human race.
If it's not a good idea, why do you think it's where we are headed? I've heard people talk about the modifications you describe. I think once you've downloaded your mind into a robot, you've pretty much ceased being human. I would be surprised if there was any consistency of being once a person booted up their robot self. It would essentially be a new creature with some data that simulates human memories.
We are what we are because of the peculiar structure of our brains. It cannot be replicated by a binary circuit. If your brain does not flood with hormones and endorphins and all of the other chemicals it interacts with, and if it does not delete and recreate memories every time you sleep and reconsider a past experience, then you are no longer you. The notion that we could create a robot that fits all of the most important criteria to be considered sentient life is far-fetched but plausible. The notion that we could create a computer that is human is preposterous.
Like another poster said, we're animals. Unless these new pseudo humans exterminated all remaining organo-humans, the humans left over would just keep on making babies the old fashioned way.
If we are able to clone with near perfect accuracy then we will likely be able to change our base DNA code if need be causing a forced evolution. In doing so we can cause ourselves to evolve and adapt to things much quicker than before helping us be more immune and tolerant to more things.
I don't quite see how genetic engineering and such will stop evolution. If it stops naturally then it will be forced in the direction that we desire and need to go.
Cloning is a far, far simpler process than genetically engineering a specific defense against a specific pathogen. There are some things that are better solved by six billion people each trying a random approach than one or a few people attempting to find the reasoned solution.
Ceasing sexual reproduction in favor of cloning would stop evolution on the micro scale. Since evolution works by accumulating small changes that eventually become evident on a macro scale, it would stop most evolution. Genetic drift would become impossible. The only evolution that would remain would be cataclysmic – a virus suddenly wiping out a huge chunk of the world's population, for example. That would be even more devastating than it would be today, because generations of genetic isolation would mean the diversity of the dead would be lost to the remaining member of the population forever, whereas now there is enough sex going on that genes are spread throughout the entire population in random combinations.
If you're going to be altering those embryos produced through cloning, then why are you cloning? You're artificially limiting the set of gene combinations you have to work with, which would seem to be the opposite of good reproductive stewardship. You will produce more robust and diverse organisms by creating the fetuses sexually and then altering those to suit your needs.
Lastly I am highly uncomfortable with the ethics and wisdom of entrusting the survival of the species to a few select individuals who happen to have cloning degrees.
Our brains are basically just organic circuits. What makes us human is that we can write our own code to adapt to new things, learn new things, and change our thought based off of new experiences and information that we have gathered. When a robot/machine is able to write and change it's own code to do such things then it will be a living being for it will be doing exactly what we do.
This is highly simplistic idea of what a brain does. There is no code our brain runs off of that is similar to a computer code.
This is highly simplistic idea of what a brain does. There is no code our brain runs off of that is similar to a computer code.
Our brain constantly reprograms itself as we continue to experience things. If and when a computer is able to do this with it's self then it will be capable of human like thought, reasoning, emotions, feelings and such.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcy_TAtfyDo
Our brain constantly reprograms itself as we continue to experience things. If and when a computer is able to do this with it's self then it will be capable of human like thought, reasoning, emotions, feelings and such.
You're just repeating yourself.
Computers are capable of constantly reprogramming themselves. We have learning, self replicating programs already. But emotions don't come from the brain being reprogrammed.
If you flood a brain with testosterone, it makes a person more prone to rage and violence. There is no switch that is thrown – that's just the effect that testosterone has on the brain. Nothing gets reprogrammed. If a brain gets a dose of endorphins, it feels pleasure. If the endorphins recede it can become depressed. You can't really recreate that effect in a computer. You can simulate it, by telling the computer a particular state is desirable, and then having it enter that state as a result of some outside stimulus, but that's not the same thing. People naturally feel different in the morning, when their bodies become flooded with steroids, and the evening, when those steroids start to ebb. The same amount of steroid effects everybody differently – even on different days of the week, or for a woman, at different points on her menstrual cycle. How would you recreate that in a computer?
Everything mental is physical. You cannot separate a person's mind from the sack of meat it's housed in – the two are one and the same.
Again, I'm not arguing against a sentient machine, or a simulation of such that could pass a Turing test. I'm arguing that such a machine will never be human, and that you could not recreate a human person in a machine.
Computers are capable of constantly reprogramming themselves. We have learning, self replicating programs already. But emotions don't come from the brain being reprogrammed.
Capable of reprogramming themselves in an already predetermined programmed manner. The only right and reprogram in a manner that was preprogrammed into them. They do not have free capability to write any kind of program they wish. They do not have free creativity because the limits of their creativity at this moment is determined by what was programmed into them.
If you flood a brain with testosterone, it makes a person more prone to rage and violence. There is no switch that is thrown – that's just the effect that testosterone has on the brain. Nothing gets reprogrammed. If a brain gets a dose of endorphins, it feels pleasure. If the endorphins recede it can become depressed. You can't really recreate that effect in a computer. You can simulate it, by telling the computer a particular state is desirable, and then having it enter that state as a result of some outside stimulus, but that's not the same thing. People naturally feel different in the morning, when their bodies become flooded with steroids, and the evening, when those steroids start to ebb. The same amount of steroid effects everybody differently – even on different days of the week, or for a woman, at different points on her menstrual cycle. How would you recreate that in a computer?
Our body turning on extra systems to deal with problems and having other systems work extra hard is similar to what a computer does. A computer can and may turn systems on and off as need be. It is not always functioning at full capacity and if it does it heats up and can become damaged if it is too hot for too long. Similar how the human body adapts to the situation and if it is stimulated for too long the human body can become damaged.
The reactions that release endorphins and such into the blood stream are caused by nerve impulses sent by the brain. These chemicals tell help certain parts of the body work at the proper capacity. A computer can turn things on and off as need be and operate at a level that is best for the task it needs to get done.
Everything mental is physical. You cannot separate a person's mind from the sack of meat it's housed in – the two are one and the same.
Again, I'm not arguing against a sentient machine, or a simulation of such that could pass a Turing test. I'm arguing that such a machine will never be human, and that you could not recreate a human person in a machine.
And this part is opinion, and opinion can't be argued. This part is something that can't be argued for you are already set with how you determine human. If people were to download themselves into computers and live as a machine, they still may be themselves and consider themselves human. You however would likely refer to them as a different species or being, which is fine because this is all just a matter of opinion.
Capable of reprogramming themselves in an already predetermined programmed manner. The only right and reprogram in a manner that was preprogrammed into them. They do not have free capability to write any kind of program they wish. They do not have free creativity because the limits of their creativity at this moment is determined by what was programmed into them.
I'm not sure what this means. Computers are perfectly capable of developing capabilities that the humans who programmed them never anticipated.
Our body turning on extra systems to deal with problems and having other systems work extra hard is similar to what a computer does. A computer can and may turn systems on and off as need be. It is not always functioning at full capacity and if it does it heats up and can become damaged if it is too hot for too long. Similar how the human body adapts to the situation and if it is stimulated for too long the human body can become damaged.
The reactions that release endorphins and such into the blood stream are caused by nerve impulses sent by the brain. These chemicals tell help certain parts of the body work at the proper capacity. A computer can turn things on and off as need be and operate at a level that is best for the task it needs to get done.
What you have described is not what I have described. Hormones flooding a brain is not some subsystem that the brain activates, and the amount that floods it when flooded is not a matter for the brain to specify. How much of a hormone is present in the brain is dependent on the size and efficiency of your glands, on your body size, your environment, and your development. How you react to it is dependent on the brain's physical capabilities – how many receptors it has for endorphins, for example, and whether they have been recently damaged, or how frequently they have been flooded before, and how prepared your brain is for this particular flood based on conditioning. That's just the physical brain, mind you. How would you quantify and model how much of a hormone a person's receptors can handle before they burn out – something that will be slightly different for each person – and how fast they will repair themselves?
And this part is opinion, and opinion can't be argued. This part is something that can't be argued for you are already set with how you determine human. If people were to download themselves into computers and live as a machine, they still may be themselves and consider themselves human. You however would likely refer to them as a different species or being, which is fine because this is all just a matter of opinion.
No, I find it unlikely, verging on impossible, that a human could be downloaded into a machine. Computers work so fundamentally differently from animals it simply doesn't seem possible. I have very high hopes for the interaction between humans and computers. Someday we will indubitably have robotic limbs almost if not more dexterous than the real thing. Maybe we will even be able to use computer chips to simulate systems within the human brain. But we cannot divorce ourselves from the meat without redefining what makes a person human.
I don't know about you but I've seem to hear scientist refer to the human body as a biological machine. They both have places for storing information. The both are programmed. They both use electric signals. etc. etc.
But we cannot divorce ourselves from the meat without redefining what makes a person human.
From what I understand now, scientist often see thought that is the thing that makes us human. I have a feeling that once robots have achieved sentience, this definition will likely be changed to also including the human body.
The brain telling a gland to release endorphins is the similar to a computer activating a system to serve a function to help it run. The gland is not the same system as the brain but they are both a part of the overall system that is the human body. The brain activating systems to release chemicals is just like a machine activating internal components and peripherals.
I don't know about you but I've seem to hear scientist refer to the human body as a biological machine. They both have places for storing information. The both are programmed. They both use electric signals. etc. etc.
Your metaphors are sound, but they are still just metaphors. Just because you can liken a person's endocrine system to a computer peripheral does not mean you can actually build a peripheral that function identically to an endocrine system, yet you would take this further and suggest that we can build a peripheral that functions identically to a specific person's endocrine system.
The human body is based on chemical reactions. If we are ever able to replicate it, it will be by replicating its chemical processes. Binary mechanical processes can only produce simulations. The same way that you can use a computer to predict what will happen when something blows up, but in order to actually blow it up, you need an actual chemical reaction to create the explosion.
There is, of course, an embedded philosophical question as to whether an individual would be able to tell the difference between being a simulation of a human and being an actual human. Regardless of what the programmed individual may believe, I believe their experience would be sufficiently different from that of a meatperson to require a new term.
From what I understand now, scientist often see thought that is the thing that makes us human. I have a feeling that once robots have achieved sentience, this definition will likely be changed to also including the human body.
From what I understand, no scientist considers "thought" to be what makes us human. Philosophers surely did, at some point. Maybe scientists as well. But once the field of neurobiology was up and running, that belief must surely have been discarded. Humans, like all animals, are a group of cells that function in tandem for the greater benefit of the colony. Any sense of a fundamental united self is only an illusion created by the colony as an evolutionary accident that turned out to be highly beneficial. There is no way to abstract a person from this colony of cells unless their individual growth, functionality, death, and replication can be mimicked perfectly. And the most efficient way to do that is with a chemical machine, not a mechanical one.
Discuss the hilarity. I am liking this actor more and more.
To get this thread somewhat back to topic...I present this.
Discuss the hilarity. I am liking this actor more and more.
Thanks, Warweaver; as for the article... LOL.
Heres what it said, for those of you with some sort of link-clicking phobia:
Good news, crazies. Robert Pattinson, of Twilight fame/hysteria, actually feeds the women who stalk him. No more eating scraps of his garbage for you! At least out of hunger. MSNBC reports:
“I had a stalker while filming a movie in Spain last year,” Pattinson told Crème Magazine, as reported by England’s Press Association. “She stood outside of my apartment every day for weeks — all day every day. I was so bored and lonely that I went out and had dinner with her.”
Unfortunately for the obsessed fan, Pattinson did not have the fairytale first date in store that the woman might have been hoping for.
“I just complained about everything in my life and she never came back,” the 22-year-old said. “People get bored of me in, like, two minutes.”
Apparently, Robert doesn't suspect getting stabbed by a statue of Edward Cullen made from tears and paper mache, so think of this as the best Valentine's Day gift EVER.
Frank... *waves hand* There never was a train. ;)
Sex(specifically reproduction) is pretty much the point of life. We may have religion, culture, and technology but in the end we are just another type of animal.
This is where we'll have to fundamentally disagree. ;)
Location: Wherever Evil needs Smiting!
Stop following me!
(Would you like to go get some dinner?)
Stop following me!
(Would you like to go get some dinner?)
Don't do it KD! He'll just bore you to death with his problems, like...red leg! And...dropsy. Or tapping on his aquarium's glass too much.
Here is the beginning funny even if you like the series.
If Twilight was 10 Times Shorter And 100 Times More Honest
FADE IN:
EXT. WASHINGTON
KRISTEN STEWART goes to FORKS, WASHINGTON.
KRISTEN STEWART (V.O.)
Once upon a time, there lived an enchanting girl named Stephanie Meyer, er I mean Kristen Stewart. She was so awesome that her awesomeness couldn't be contained in Arizona, so she moved to Washington to stay with her father, who was totally lame and not cool.
BILLY BURKE
Hey honey. I'm super lame. I got you a car, but it's totally uncool because I'm totally uncool.
KRISTEN STEWART
Thanks Dad, or whatever. Time for my first day at a new school. Since every coming-of-age story requires the main character be a social outcast, I suppose I'll have to endure being the unpopular new girl until I do something that proves my worth.
KRISTEN goes to school and is INSTANTLY POPULAR AND BELOVED.
ANNA KENDRICK
Oh my God I love your hair you're so pretty will you be my new best friend?
GREGORY TYREE BOYCE
Can I take you out sometime since you're so awesome?
MICHAEL WELCH
No way you *******, I saw her first!
KRISTEN STEWART
I'd rather watch "The Messengers" than date either of you. Why don't you go ask Anna instead?
ANNA KENDRICK
Ohmigod I'm getting Kristen's rejects, that's so awesome!
KRISTEN STEWART
Wow. I guess this is what it looks like when the unpopular fat girl's pathetic daydreams get written down and published into a bestselling book. Aren't well-written characters supposed to have flaws?
FADE IN:
EXT. WASHINGTON
KRISTEN STEWART goes to FORKS, WASHINGTON.
KRISTEN STEWART (V.O.)
Once upon a time, there lived an enchanting girl named Stephanie Meyer, er I mean Kristen Stewart. She was so awesome that her awesomeness couldn't be contained in Arizona, so she moved to Washington to stay with her father, who was totally lame and not cool.
BILLY BURKE
Hey honey. I'm super lame. I got you a car, but it's totally uncool because I'm totally uncool.
KRISTEN STEWART
Thanks Dad, or whatever. Time for my first day at a new school. Since every coming-of-age story requires the main character be a social outcast, I suppose I'll have to endure being the unpopular new girl until I do something that proves my worth.
KRISTEN goes to school and is INSTANTLY POPULAR AND BELOVED.
ANNA KENDRICK
Oh my God I love your hair you're so pretty will you be my new best friend?
GREGORY TYREE BOYCE
Can I take you out sometime since you're so awesome?
MICHAEL WELCH
No way you *******, I saw her first!
KRISTEN STEWART
I'd rather watch "The Messengers" than date either of you. Why don't you go ask Anna instead?
ANNA KENDRICK
Ohmigod I'm getting Kristen's rejects, that's so awesome!
KRISTEN STEWART
Wow. I guess this is what it looks like when the unpopular fat girl's pathetic daydreams get written down and published into a bestselling book. Aren't well-written characters supposed to have flaws?
Aren't well-written characters supposed to have flaws?
Her flaw is a complete lack of good sense.
Her flaw is a complete lack of good sense.
Lol, if you go to the whole article the next line is actually
ANNA KENDRICK
Flaws? Oh, well, um, I suppose you could argue that you're a little TOO perfect and amazing. But I don't think so. Let's make out.