How many drinks are you at? I need to know what to do to catch up.

Didn't suck. Wasn't great. Terrible characters and writing, but the last fight at the end was worth it.

Holy shit, that accent makes me want to puke.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on June 11, 2015, 08:24:49 PM

It's just early-unlocks, like pretty much every major FPS is doing lately.

Murder is okay if everyone does it

I'm just saying that it's not as bad as pre-order weapons could be.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on June 11, 2015, 08:36:15 PM

As for being able to tell the story in a single book, well yeah you could tell the entire plot in a shorter period, but the books are really about getting inside the characters and making them real and believable; you can't do that, while including incredibly complex political struggles, in a single novel.

not if you're a good writer

just sayin

That's bullshit and you know it. A series' length is not indicative of poor writing, it's typically indicative of its depth and complexity.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on June 11, 2015, 08:17:45 PM

I don't know what use there is saying what's canon and isn't. It's all ASOIF, it's all going to end basically the same way.

that's what i'm talking about

whenever there's an adaptation of anything, i always focus on one medium

the only exception has been harry potter, but even then, i only started reading and finishing all the books in the interim between movie 6 and movie 7

i'm just not into... being told the same story in a different way
it's like, if i wanted that, i would just rewatch the one that already exists

I'd tell you to read the books, but that's also a larger investment of time. Each one is a brick, and they just get thicker and slower in pace. I think I've been reading book 4 for six months now. The show is more exciting and relatable. I think that fans will get valuable contributions to the universe from both sources.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on June 11, 2015, 08:17:45 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 11, 2015, 08:12:03 PM

like, i guess people reconcile with the fact that it's still "entertaining", i guess, but like

for me, if i just spent a hundred or so hours watching a show that essentially meant nothing because it's not actually canon
i'd just feel empty inside

I don't know what use there is saying what's canon and isn't. It's all ASOIF, it's all going to end basically the same way. I like it because it gives you different perspectives of the characters, and in a character-driven series like this one, that's very valuable. And as a book-reader, I really don't mind being surprised by episodes now, instead of just mentally checking off a list of book events the show has done.

It reminds me of Fullmetal Alchemist, which has two parallel series which contradict each others' story, but has the same art style, writing style, voice actors, and animation, so it's almost like having twice the content.

im not trying to take away from the show by saying that, but that's just the cold hard truth. it isnt canon. it changes a lot of things. is it still valuable as a work of art, and as a companion piece to a song of ice and fire? absolutely. but it isnt a song of ice and fire. its game of thrones the tv show.

Like I said, I don't see a point to the distinction. Nobody is under the impression that the show is trying to precisely follow the books.

Olly confirmed Azor Ahai.

Just saw a post on Facebook about a celebrity complaining about taking his daughter to the beach in Santa Barbara. She got oil on her feet, and he personally blamed the executives for animal deaths and his daughter being scarred for life.

Of course, this is probably after he drove his gas-powered car, typing on a computer and living in a house powered by oil and coal, in between tours where he flies on jets that burn a hundred thousand pounds of fuel each day.

It's so easy to bitch about oil because it's dirty and dangerous and makes people rich, but oil spills happen, often by no real fault of anyone in particular. I'm all about nuclear power and less reliance on oil, but oil is never going away, at least not in the foreseeable future. So let's be adults about disasters, and instead of shaking our fists at rich executives, deal with our problems with as little hypocrisy as possible.

I'm not sure Augustine held no purpose for suffering -- any theologian worth his salt can give you a reason for anything. I find City of God hard to discuss because I haven't studied it in several years and it's hard to just pick it up again. Like I said, I don't necessarily ascribe to much of what he says, but you'd be hard-pressed to find another theologian with such a profound impact on the subject to this day.

Holy shit, it's real.

Obviously the site is NSFW, but the video isn't:

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on June 10, 2015, 07:08:22 PM

I've never read anything by Schleiermacher, and I'm not really sure what to say about that debate since City of God really isn't about the afterlife. I think if you're going to call Augustine's theodicy "nonsense" you have to do something to qualify it, and while I sincerely don't mean to be rude, I strongly suspect you're mostly parroting someone else's opinion after a cursory read of the relevant Wikipedia pages.

Pretty certain I've thrown this passage in City of God at you before:

Quote

19. That all bodily blemishes which mar human beauty in this life shall be removed in the resurrection, the natural substance of the body remaining, but the quality and quantity of it being altered so as to produce beauty.

What am I to say now about the hair and nails? Once it is understood that no part of the body shall so perish as to produce deformity in the body, it is at the same time understood that such things as would have produced a deformity by their excessive proportions shall be added to the total bulk of the body, not to parts in which the beauty of the proportion would thus be marred. Just as if, after making a vessel of clay, one wished to make it over again of the same clay, it would not be necessary that the same portion of the clay which had formed the handle should again form the new handle, or that what had formed the bottom should again do so, but only that the whole clay should go to make up the whole new vessel, and that no part of it should be left unused. “Wherefore, if the hair that has been cropped and the nails that have been cut would cause a deformity were they to be restored to their places, they shall not be restored; and yet no one will lose these parts at the resurrection, for they shall be changed into the same flesh, their substance being so altered as to preserve the proportion of the various parts of the body. However, what our Lord said, “Not a hair of your head shall perish,” might more suitably be interpreted of the number, and not of the length of the hairs, as He elsewhere says, “The hairs of your head are all numbered.”

I don't understand what your issue with this is. Is it that such details are being discussed at all? City of God is 22 books long, and this is just a paragraph of a preeminent Christian scholar musing through what could be the answer to fine details of the resurrection body.

As for his theodicy, it relies on numerous ideas and propositions which just seem indefensible. That the Fall of Man be taken literally, and that future generations ought to suffer because we were apparently "seminally present" in the loins of Adam. That evil is the absence of good. That free will may lead to people committing evil acts, but that it is necessary for a proper relationship with God (the free will part being the part I take issue with). The idea that God created the world perfect, and then it was corrupted through the immoral exercise of said free will. And the reduction of all suffering to either the privation of good or the punishment of the privation of good.

Again, I'm not sure what you want me to say. You're basically just disagreeing with swaths of Christian doctrine; if you're not a Christian, and don't put stock in the truth of the Bible, you're going to disagree with those claims. Jesus and his disciples talked about sin passing from the father to his sons, how humans are "children of wrath", etc. In a Christian worldview in which goodness is literally defined by the character of God, it follows that absence of godly character is an absence of good, thus defined as 'evil'. Did God created evil to fulfill a purpose or is it an innate deprivation of His character in humanity? They're not necessarily in conflict if you think that the world as we know it, including the Fall, is exactly how God originally intended, then you see that they're both discussing different sides of the same coin. But Irenaeus goes on to talk about how everyone goes to heaven and that the mortal world is basically puberty for humanity to transcend into deities themselves, and that's pretty silly in my humble opinion. He has absolutely no biblical basis for that conclusion.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on June 10, 2015, 06:22:35 PM

City of God and Confessions are two of the most significant pieces of theology in history.

And most of it, from what I know, seems to be bullshit.

His ideas about the afterlife in City of God are just nonsense, even if they are closer to the Biblical account of life after death than the writings of St. Paul, and his theodicy trying to justify God's righteousness in the face of evil is equally nonsensical.

I'll give him credit for sticking more closely to the doctrine than Irenaeus and Schleiermacher ever did, but at least they came up with a broadly more respectable answer.

I've never read anything by Schleiermacher, and I'm not really sure what to say about that debate since City of God really isn't about the afterlife. I think if you're going to call Augustine's theodicy "nonsense" you have to do something to qualify it, and while I sincerely don't mean to be rude, I strongly suspect you're mostly parroting someone else's opinion after a cursory read of the relevant Wikipedia pages.

American Psycho, because it really put you in the warped mindset of the protagonist, and Memento because of the way it gives you key information from the beginning to start mapping the timeline and plot, and then yanks all that away.

Probably the most disappointing twist I've seen is the one in The Village.

And though I don't typically like anime, I thought Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet had a brilliant plot twist, though the name's pretty fucked up.

I know a kid that stays skinny while living on a diet of pizza and donuts. Some people just weren't meant to survive an ice age.