deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I got a hotdropped hardrive with Archer on it while launching jets aboard a carrier in the gulf in that same timeframe. Every season that aired while I was on deployment was a great treat in the heat. A friend of mine had a background in flash animation, (blast from the past) and he wanted to create a show with me in the same vein as archer and Sealab 2021, but about Navy pilots on a carrier. So I wrote a few scripts and he began on some scenes. We never made anything of it, because we didn’t have the voice actors (neither of us were vocally inclined). Regardless Archers stellar writing and style got me through a long stretch of extensions in the middle east.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

The movie’s nonlinear story telling is the worst part of the film. Oppenheimer’s security clearance hearing was a good place to anchor the movie, but it did not even attempt to set up its antagonist until the last quarter of the movie. Why should it have been a ah-ha moment that Strauss was against Oppenheimer. A better editor would have more effectively placed all of the scenes into a coherent narrative.

The sex scene was just bad. “Christopher, how do intelligent people have sex?” “Well, they can only be aroused by reading ancient languages that foreshadow their grandiose future achievements.”

When Oppenheimer, allegedly poisoned Blackett’s apple, it should have been a scene about his mental health issues at the time. Rather than a completely fabricated suspense scene. People who were aware of the incident questioned if it ever really happened. It would have been more impactful to have a scene where Oppenheimer meets with his analyst from that period. The movie decides to simply say that it happened and for some reason interjected Bohr.

The portrayals of characters was a highlight of the film. Most of the acting was great. It was, however, overly stuffed with high profile actors, which turned the film into a distracting cameo bingo game.

The physical and psychological aftermath of the atomic booms dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not adequately portrayed. It did not show well enough the psychological toll it took on the scientists on the project or portray the horrific physical toll it inflicted on the Japanese people. The slide reel scene not showing a single image of the attack was a poor choice. It demonstrates that Hollywood is completely ok with an R rating for showing nudity, but not for confronting people with the horrors of human cruelty.

I knew there was a television show, but hadn’t watched it. Its surprising that it was a continuation of the series.

I very much wish that a movie would come along in the same vein as the original MI movie. It is drastically different in tone and execution than any of the following films. I think a proper Tom Clancy Splinter Cell movie could do it. Movies now unnecessarily revolve around a world ending threat. The NOC list in Mi1 was a great motivating force for the characters to be striving to protect or steal. Now Ethan Hunt is constantly trying to save the world. Stakes which should never be left up to one person.

deleted by creator

My original post argument is summed up like this:

statement: The person who used the system to hurt the OP is the problem (true)

statement: Accountability and transparency is a positive attribute of the system and attacking it diminishes its availability to other users (true)

Statement: You (OP) are attacking the system instead of the person responsible for the issue (true)

conclusion: OP attacking the accountability and transparency attributes will only diminish the ability of users to use them appropriately and isn’t targeting troublemakers. (valid and sound)

This is a valid argument as the conclusion flows from the statements. You can say it’s not sound, by saying one or more of the statements is untrue.

But they didn’t do that they said:

NGL this sounds like everyone ever who has defended a terrible thing and instead blamed an individual.

for example: “Guns aren’t the problem, the people with guns that are the problem.”

Grammatical errors aside, the argument presented here is:

statement: Your argument is in defense of a terrible thing (false)

statement: Your argument blames the individual (true)

statement: your argument is similar to "guns aren’t the problem, the people with the guns that are the problem. (false) (that isn’t an argument its two statements that are indicative of people who trivialize gun violence)

conclusion: Your argument is in defense of a terrible thing, like trivializing gun violence, because it blames an individual. (valid but untrue)

It cannot be said that this wasn’t a strawman argument when the person states that I am in defense of a terrible thing that is “like” statements made by those who trivialize gun violence. It’s a thinly veiled, poorly constructed, grammatically incorrect assault on me, instead of a rebuttal to my argument’s component statements. You can absolutely tell me that you think that transparency and accountability is a bad thing. That would be your opinion and you may have examples of that, but I could then rebut with examples where it is a good thing. That is not what they did. I hope you can see that from this breakdown and keep an eye out for people who use this tactic on you in the future.

So NOW your arguments are hyperbolic “examples” not actual statements or questions.

This is a public forum, but understand I say this directly for you to reflect on personally:

Next time you try to associate another person with gun violence advocacy, even if through implied positionality using the words “like”, maybe, just maybe, your argument was going nowhere.

The second question was as flawed as the first statements you made. It requires no answer.

A strawman argument is when you pretend a person is another and attack the false persona you proped up. Your statement propped me up as a person who trivializes gun violence. It was a gross overstep by the way.

You don’t know when you are making a strawman argument. Which you verifiably did. Try not to trip on your own statements and maybe take a course on philosophical logic so you can retrace and understand your own words.

You just tried to make and equivalency between “guns” and “transparency and accountability”. Try to realize that.

Your example: “Guns aren’t the problem, the people with the guns are the problem.” “Transparency and Accountability aren’t the problem, the people that abuse it are the problem.”

An arguments construction has nothing to do with it’s parts so even if my argument is constructed in the same way it does not make them the same. Try not to build strawmen with flawed logic.

As an aside here’s a better statement:

Guns are the problem and People are the problem. Transparency and accountability are not the problem.

Seeing downvotes is not the problem. It is a positive attribute of the platform as it increases transparency and accountability. Do not try to shift the blame off of the person. The person who used the system to do this to you is the problem. It is good that you have a way to track this behavior, but if people start clamouring for closing avenues of transparency, it will lead inevitably to a platform that does not allow you to make these observations.

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”

-Thomas Paine

People uphold their own oppressors because of a need to uphold tradition. F**k the monarchy.