Jump to content

The Defenestrator

Member
  • Posts

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Defenestrator

  1. Is this common Tarantino behavior?

    Terry Gross interviewed him on Fresh Air and all I can say is that it was awkward. Somewhat similar to this interview where Tarantino talked about how he's been talking about this for 20 years and his position hasn't changed. There was lot's of dead air and Tarantino would answer questions with really short answers. She asked him what he liked about "Spaghetti Western beatings" and then he pauses and says 'It's fun" followed by a little laughter then a long pause. Then she followed up asking about Sandy Hook and asked if there were ever times when it wasn't fun. Taratino's response: "Not for me." I don't think Gross knew how to respond to that.

  2. Hmmmm.... I don't think Kassian was saying the CBMW was the originator of the concepts. I just saw her reacting to Held Evans claim that the main group defending complementarian views today is the CBMW. Given that, her bit about never having heard of the book makes sense ... if the people who are associated with the CBMW haven't heard of the book then it probably wasn't an influence.

    As far as your second paragraph goes, I've met complemenatarians who believe both but I've always seen it as personal preference, not some ideal that some people just happen to fall short on.

    In any case, if Held Evans believes that the "theological bulwark" of the complementarian view is the CBMW, then I think Kassian gives plenty of evidence that the homemaking-as-highest-calling view is not the standard view.

  3. Here is one response to the study:

    Spencer and Braswell's study uses an overly simplistic climate model, their conclusions rely on using one particular data set, and their paper does not provide enough information to duplicate the study. The paper is fundamentally flawed and has no scientific merit.

    The end of this article also notes that the editor of the journal that published Spencer and Braswell's paper ended up resigning because of it.

  4. Listening for the first time as I type this. I'm getting a strong James Bond vibe from the first track, "Supremacy." If I didn't know Adele was performing it instead, I'd swear this was the new theme song.

  5. Sullivan links to Coyne and both refer to "god of the gaps." This is a fundamental misunderstanding of ID. The structure of a god of the gaps argument is: I don't know how X, Y, and Z could have happened, therefore god must have done it. ID in general says X, Y, and Z point to the existence of god. The philosophical phrase for what ID is doing is "inference to the best explanation." And science makes these kinds of inferences all the time. The real problem with ID is that it hasn't gone anywhere. It hasn't made any contributions to science. It hasn't led to any new knowledge or new discoveries. In the words of Lakatos, it is a degenerating research program.

    The problem with non-overlapping domains is that you can't rid science of philosophy (and philosophy can't ignore science). There is no clear line between the two.

  6. Here's a very interesting article about Ian Bogost. Quick synopsis: Bogost created a game called "Cow Clicker" for Facebook in order to critique social games like Farmville. A lot of people were in on the joke but a lot of other people started playing it seriously. Meanwhile, other games he created weren't getting the attention that Cow Clicker was.
  7. The Last Psychiatrist reviews analyzes Catfish.

    "The problem of perspective is the true caution of the movie, missed by everyone. We value Nev's perspective more because he made the movie, but also because it features (not just uses) cameras, Google Maps, all of which are signals of neutrality, objectivity. If someone else made the movie about him and these events, you'd be aware of his insanity immediately. But by cleverly making the movie a POV, you're drawn into seeing things only his way."

    And my favorite line:

    "The critics will deftly signal without spoiling that this isn't really a horror movie. Let me correct that right now: it is absolutely a horror movie. Fortunately for Angela, the psychopaths just happen to be pussies."
  8. Interestingly, Smith's book Desiring the Kingdom talks at length about secular liturgies and rituals and how they compete against Christian liturgies for our imaginations. McCracken doesn't seem to get this but Starbucks does. Essentially his argument is that humans are not primarily "thinking beings" but rather "desiring, loving beings." And he claims that it is liturgies, rituals, and practices that shape and form our desires. They teach us "to approach the world in a certain way, to value certain things, to aim for certain goals, to pursue certain dreams, to work together on certain projects." Starbucks new add campaign shows that they understand this (and on this point, Smith does a great job of describing the liturgies and rituals of consumer capitalism).

  9. Whose to say he's singing about himself anymore than he's singing about some literary creation of his?

    Not to mention the fact that saying "I love you" need not have sexual connotations. In "Futile Devices" for example, you aren't going to tell somebody that you have sexual relationship with (or sexual feelings towards) that you think of him as your brother.

×
×
  • Create New...