|
Post by geode on Feb 24, 2019 17:32:07 GMT
I don't think it had much of a point. Self-indulgent works like this are usually more about form rather than substance. However, I had a roommate firing grad school who was fond of saying, "People are pigs, and they go down from there." There really aren't very many noble characters in this movie....if any. Eh.... Ehhhhhh......
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 24, 2019 17:31:12 GMT
I don't think it had much of a point. Self-indulgent works like this are usually more about form rather than substance. However, I had a roommate firing grad school who was fond of saying, "People are pigs, and they go down from there." There really aren't very many noble characters in this movie....if any. What the fuck does firing grad school mean? That was autocorrect changing what I actually typed. I typed "while at"
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 24, 2019 12:34:45 GMT
I thought it was okay, but didn't really see the point. Servants deserve to be servants and should stay that way? I don't think it had much of a point. Self-indulgent works like this are usually more about form rather than substance. However, I had a roommate firing grad school who was fond of saying, "People are pigs, and they go down from there." There really aren't very many noble characters in this movie....if any.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 23, 2019 12:13:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 23, 2019 4:39:34 GMT
On Feb. 3rd I wrote:
Javier and Francisco decide to run away from a farm in "Smallville" where they are laboring with other workers that are not allowed to leave. Those who try to do so disappear. Javier came to Kansas to find his mother.
"Subterranian" was more like an episode from earlier seasons right down to having a "kryptofreak" having a special power due to exposure to meteor rocks (kryptonite). In this case to tunnel like a creature in "Tremors"..
Clark finds Javier hiding in the barn and doesn't turn him into the sheriff when Javier tells him that he is not legally resident. Javier asks Clark why he didn't turn him in and Clark responds, "Because I know what it feels like to be out of place. Besides I'm not from around here either." Martha Kent walks in on the discussion and angerly says "immigration" must be called. Clark replies that all Javier wants to do is find his mom and Martha insists proper legal channels must be followed. Clark replies, "Was it legal when you forged my adoption papers? I'm an illegal immigrant Mom. You've been harboring me for over 17 years."
This was "Smallville" exploring its primal theme of Clark as an outsider. This was done with a plot involving human trafficking and illegal immigration using coyotes. It started my pondering when such themes had shown up in past films or TV shows. I remember a "Sea Hunt" episode from the 50s where people were being smuggled underwater into Southern California. Then there was the episode of "The Fugitive" from 1963 with Richard Kimble working with migrant farm workers. I think all of them stressed the "human" element of separated families and the like.
I hadn't thought about similarities between Clark Kent and Richard Kimble before, but in the "Smallville" version of the character they do exist. They both have a major secret they must hide from people.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 23, 2019 4:37:02 GMT
Then on Feb. 1st I wrote this on Facebook:
So...the very next sixth season episode of "Smallville" I watched, "Rage" did nothing to change my opinion that this show may have "jumped the shark" after the third season. Here we see Lois Lane after suffering what generally happens in fight scenes. She has been lofted through the air on top of a glass table. Being lofted several meters into walls, etc. happens in virtually every episode. She has a shard of glass in her back in an apartment in Metropolis and phones for an ambulance. We next see her in the Smallville Medical Clinic. I guess she fulfills the obligatory role of a major character ending up here every week, but did it make sense for the ambulance to take her here instead of a hospital in Metropolis? Oh yeah, it was a standing set. Little wonder that so many scenes take place here.
Later the putz that tossed her gets tossed by Clark through the air about 15 feet to be stopped by a wall. As usual the result is no serious injury.
Gone are the major plot arcs of Lex Luthor trying to emulate Clark and subvert his dark side, and Clark and Lex being best friends. They stopped even liking each other in the last season. No studying "nature" versus "nurture" in regards to Clark and Lex and their childhood upbringing anymore. This leaves Lex, who was easily the most interesting character, with not much of a focus. No struggles within himself, and neither really good or evil....just sort of "there"...
This was a "Thanksgiving" show from 12 years ago. But the Thanksgiving part is just a dinner scene pointlessly tacked on the end.
It was as if the writers expected it to end when Clark was still in high school, and had no idea what to do with it after graduation. The demographic the show was aimed at was probably those in high school.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 23, 2019 4:31:09 GMT
This is what I wrote on Facebook January 30th:
Watching a Smallville episode from Season 6. The first three seasons were pretty good but it got to be rougher going after that. Two major characters have departed with new ones introduced they are nowhere near as interesting. Plots with major characters being possessed by witches or turned into vampires have simply pushed credibility to the limit. Having one major character or another critically injured in the town's hospital every week has gotten "very old" in terms of imagination. Basically it has degenerated into a sci-fi soap opera. Too bad the cast is being given such tripe to work with as they deserve better. Tom Welling, Michael Rosenbaum and John Glover are fun to watch when given good scripts but they are almost non-existent at this point.
Production values remain excellent but I am finding now that I go weeks between episodes. Something taint right when I have to force myself to watch. But, I bought all ten seasons years ago, with the second half on blu-ray. Perhaps some of the trouble might be more "me" than the show. It is hard to motivate myself to do almost anything just now.
I never liked Green Arrow and now he has been brought in as a continuing character and love interest for Lois Lane. Jimmy Olson is a total dweeb. Lana Lang has become so irritating I grimace when she has a scene. In the first seasons I thought she was adorable.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 23, 2019 4:04:57 GMT
I was referring to the whole endemic emotional blackmail shunning thing in particular...done on purpose to punish those you love for having a different opinion to you. One thing that has not been mentioned so far is that the Amish practice shunning. And, given that they are an insular community that is based on agriculture, someone who has been shunned has only the world of the 'English' to go to, and how exactly are they supposed to survive?
The Amish claim that teenagers are given the opportunity to go out in the English world, during 'Rumspringe' , but given that they are complete 'babes in the woods' and have no knowledge of how to function in that world, the vast majority go back to what they know. It's about control, as are all religions.
I consider myself lucky that I was able to escape the Evangelical Southern Baptist cult I was raised in, though my aging mother is still trying to bring me back into the fold. Once she has passed on, I will live my own life, separate from the rest of the family that are all Bible-thumpers. I have no desire to maintain contact with a family that has refused to help my mother because I am an atheist. They are punishing her for my 'sins'. Yet more coercion, more attempts to control. Back in 1987 I almost formally joined a Presbyterian congregation I had been worshipping with. This would have been grounds for excommunication from the Mormon church. When I told my mother about this she started crying, "I can explain an inactive son to my friends at church, but not an excommunicated one. They will assume you are into some great sin." I said it shouldn't matter what they thought, as it would be an act of conscience on my part. That didn't soothe the waters. She was probably right about that, so I did not follow through. I am saddened to hear of your situation. Too many religious sects act in an inhuman fashion which they justify by protecting "the faith"....this is so wrong.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 23, 2019 2:32:16 GMT
What a stylized, pretentious, piece of dung!
No, I didn't just re-watch last year's worst film nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award, "The Phantom Thread"... I just watched this year's equivalent to it....the much Oscar nominated "The Favourite"....(yes, it is a British movie).
But perhaps it wasn't all bad, it does have a bunch of bunnies hopping around in some scenes. I like bunnies. There is also a duck racing scene. Not many movies have duck racing. Horatio the Duck wins. Yeah, Horatio!The movie also has a scene, just tossed in with no connection with anything else, of a middle-aged chubby man wearing nothing but a wig being pelted by tomatoes. High art lives!
I was in a depressed mood and this was like a trip through hell for two hours. Low key lighting combined with a bunch of scenes inexplicably shot through a fish eye lens did not fill me with warm and fuzzy feelings. I never did like intrusive cinematography with no point.The soundtrack alternates between baroque classical pieces and rhythmic noises, like birds flapping, or a rusty windmill revolving over and over for minutes on end. Very loud and irritating and it dos not match the mood of the scenes at all..
I counted three scenes where characters suddenly grab a convenient jar and vomit into it without explanation. But wasn't the director, Yorgos Lanthimos, being cute. I think he gave each of the female leads her own vomit scene. Now that is feminism at its best, is it not? Were these scenes a cue to the audience? If so, we were not given barf bags on the way in. Oh, and for all the feminist movie fans out there, there are multiple lesbian sex scenes to please you. I can't say scenes like these ever did anything for me, but to each their own.
The acting was good to excellent, but why bother considering the nature of the rest of the production? What a waste of talent under the direction of a tasteless twit. The screenplay is loaded with gratuitous Anglo-Saxon "expletive deleted" words. (Watergate tapes on my mind). A couple of scenes have people acting like frisky rabbits in corners as regular "serious" dialogue is rendered front and center. Maybe I should have used a word that rhymes with "thumping" (like the soundtrack) instead of "acting" but I am trying to keep this a family friendly review.
There are chapter titles that are lines of dialogue that will come up, but "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." this is not. They are arranged vertically with strange capitalization making them hard to read. The first chapter title is, "This mud stinks" but it should have read "This movie stinks"....
The last shot is of the favourite "servicing" the queen with bunnies superimposed over it. Ah, those bunnies yet again. Honestly, you can't make something this moronic up.
The end credits are in weird multiple fonts, with the same strange capitalization as the chapter titles. They are basically illegible. Was this in the contracts of the people listed there, so they would not be held responsible?
I understand flicks like this being released. I understand critics falling all over themselves praising them. They have a habit of adoring pretentious pics, but it defrauds the public to nominate tripe like this for best picture awards. I want my 140 baht back! Queen Anne should sue for defamation of character. Oh wait, 305 years too late.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 23, 2019 2:31:06 GMT
What a stylized, pretentious, piece of dung!
No, I didn't just re-watch last year's worst film nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award, "The Phantom Thread"... I just watched this year's equivalent to it....the much Oscar nominated "The Favourite"....(yes, it is a British movie).
But perhaps it wasn't all bad, it does have a bunch of bunnies hopping around in some scenes. I like bunnies. There is also a duck racing scene. Not many movies have duck racing. Horatio the Duck wins. Yeah, Horatio!The movie also has a scene, just tossed in with no connection with anything else, of a middle-aged chubby man wearing nothing but a wig being pelted by tomatoes. High art lives!
I was in a depressed mood and this was like a trip through hell for two hours. Low key lighting combined with a bunch of scenes inexplicably shot through a fish eye lens did not fill me with warm and fuzzy feelings. I never did like intrusive cinematography with no point.The soundtrack alternates between baroque classical pieces and rhythmic noises, like birds flapping, or a rusty windmill revolving over and over for minutes on end. Very loud and irritating and it dos not match the mood of the scenes at all..
I counted three scenes where characters suddenly grab a convenient jar and vomit into it without explanation. But wasn't the director, Yorgos Lanthimos, being cute. I think he gave each of the female leads her own vomit scene. Now that is feminism at its best, is it not? Were these scenes a cue to the audience? If so, we were not given barf bags on the way in. Oh, and for all the feminist movie fans out there, there are multiple lesbian sex scenes to please you. I can't say scenes like these ever did anything for me, but to each their own.
The acting was good to excellent, but why bother considering the nature of the rest of the production? What a waste of talent under the direction of a tasteless twit. The screenplay is loaded with gratuitous Anglo-Saxon "expletive deleted" words. (Watergate tapes on my mind). A couple of scenes have people acting like frisky rabbits in corners as regular "serious" dialogue is rendered front and center. Maybe I should have used a word that rhymes with "thumping" (like the soundtrack) instead of "acting" but I am trying to keep this a family friendly review.
There are chapter titles that are lines of dialogue that will come up, but "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." this is not. They are arranged vertically with strange capitalization making them hard to read. The first chapter title is, "This mud stinks" but it should have read "This movie stinks"....
The last shot is of the favourite "servicing" the queen with bunnies superimposed over it. Ah, those bunnies yet again. Honestly, you can't make something this moronic up.
The end credits are in weird multiple fonts, with the same strange capitalization as the chapter titles. They are basically illegible. Was this in the contracts of the people listed there, so they would not be held responsible?
I understand flicks like this being released. I understand critics falling all over themselves praising them. They have a habit of adoring pretentious pics, but it defrauds the public to nominate tripe like this for best picture awards. I want my 140 baht back! Queen Anne should sue for defamation of character. Oh wait, 305 years too late.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 21, 2019 16:37:57 GMT
My most major criticism of the film is that it is too long. I think a 130 minute movie is not a good idea if your main audience is kids. But even as an adult I found it dragged in parts, mainly the beginning that essentially lacks songs. I think 20-30 mins. could have easily been edited out without losing much in terms of the plot. It would have flowed better. A shorter movie would have allowed at least one more showing a day which would have helped the box office. Other than that it was pretty good, with generally inspired casting. That is a good point, but the intent was on keeping it as much in line with the originals presentation. I would have to see again, and a tighter edit may have worked wonders for the film, but what exactly could they have taken out without disrupting the flow?
I even feel the first MP is perhaps a bit too long and the dance of the chimney sweeps perhaps could have been shortened. The same with the lamplighters in this one.
I don't think much of anything needed to be taken out in terms of full scenes, the establishing scenes could have all been trimmed a bit, these being the scenes before MP shows up. I would have to watch it again to see if I still feel this way, but the fact I did in a first viewing ....and at the beginning of the movie makes me feel the pacing was too slow. Too much about financial woes, etc. The lamplighters was a contrived idea to begin with. Most of London street lamps had been electrified by then, and the parts that were not were mainly on timers and self igniting.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 21, 2019 6:07:55 GMT
You have taken every opportunity for years on the board to defend shunning by the Mormons and JWs. That comment you made about apostates really is not about shunning.
"1. Religions are free to determine how to handle apostates within their religion regardless of precedent but certainly if there is one."
Yes, this is true. But it doesn't mean that what they do is in alignment with what Christ taught. You made a bunch of claims that He would never associate with unbelievers or sinners. I cited instances where he did just that. I notice you are ignoring this, the main point of my last post.
"2. This condoning of religious freedom is not the same thing as me agree to the beliefs of the religion whether we are talking about JW's, Mormons, atheists, or whatever."
I don't even know what you mean by this.
"3. There is NO evidence to suggest Jesus or any Christian welcomes enemies of their teaching as they would a believer. Prove me wrong. Sinners and non-believers are not inherently enemies. Apostates always are so it makes perfect sense why any religion would want their followers to avoid them. I guess I better add that this doesn't mean the apostate is wrong."
Here we go with your moving the goal posts again. Were we not talking about "enemies" before, or at least I wasn't. You were claiming that non-believers and sinners were shunned by Jesus. You basically equated apostates as sinners. So now you are moving your position. I think apostates by most people's definition just stop believing. Are you using a JW definition? Some actively attempt to tear down the faith, but most do not.
"4. I have no dog in the fight of shunning I can talk to whoever I wish to, so it remains silly to connect me to JW's version of it which still remains indistinguishable from the Mormon one imo which makes your whining about it even odder."
For somebody who has no dog in the fight, you sure promote shunning very strongly. I already explained the the JW concept and Mormon concept of shunning are vastly different. The Mormons do not have a formal policy of shunning like the JWs...remember that part? Apparently not.
I defend churches that don’t shun too. It doesn’t matter if a religion is adhering to Christian teachings or not in regards to their rights enforce their views. However shunning is a Biblical thing and one that can easily be interpreted that Jesus would sanction. I never once made a claim that Jesus or any Christian in the Bible would not hang out with sinners and nonbelievers. It literally was the exact opposite of what I said. What I said are apostates and enemies were shunned. You are creating goalposts as I have moved nothing.. Apostasy is abandonment which is different than disbelief. A person who stops believing would have little to no interest is turning other people away from what they once believed. If the person kept matters to themselves then I’m not sure what issue there would be. Your article is specifically discussing apostates shunned by the Mormon Church or its members and them activately trying to get people leave as well through what you thought might be deceptive advertising. Why on Earth would you think I’m changing the context from that? "I defend churches that don’t shun too."
By saying that they do not follow scripture or the wishes of Jesus?
"It doesn’t matter if a religion is adhering to Christian teachings or not in regards to their rights enforce their views. However shunning is a Biblical thing and one that can easily be interpreted that Jesus would sanction."
You claim that shuning is a biblical thing. Yes, that is all you have done. You have failed to support this with scripture even when prompted. You can easily interpret that Jesus would sanctin it, but this would fly in the face of what He actually did and said, some of which I have referenced.
"I never once made a claim that Jesus or any Christian in the Bible would not hang out with sinners and nonbelievers. It literally was the exact opposite of what I said." Exact opposite? You implied it very strongly. You said: "On top of that he warns about associating with ones who are unrepentantly sin or stumble the faithful. While dying he literally told his apostles to take care of his mother over his siblings who weren't disciples at the time. Jesus has always chosen faithfulness over unfaithfulness and so it stands to reason that people who are actually enemies of his teachings would fit into that as well."
And yet he hung out with a woman who apparently had committed adultery. Why? In part to call her to repent. Jesus hung out with Pharisees who most certainly tended to attack Him. They accused him of associating with just those sinners you talk about here.
"What I said are apostates and enemies were shunned. You are creating goalposts as I have moved nothing.."
You keep changing your definition of "apostate' and evolve it to fit wherever you are in the discussion. That is moving the goal posts.
"Apostasy is abandonment which is different than disbelief. A person who stops believing would have little to no interest is turning other people away from what they once believed. If the person kept matters to themselves then I’m not sure what issue there would be." So people who stop believing do not abandon? I think you are splitting hairs with semantics. You last said:
"Sinners and non-believers are not inherently enemies. Apostates always are so it makes perfect sense why any religion would want their followers to avoid them."
You are following a different definition than others dod, once again, is this the JW definition? It certainly is not the one other religions use. You claim that apostates are always enemies.
"Your article is specifically discussing apostates shunned by the Mormon Church or its members and them activately trying to get people leave as well through what you thought might be deceptive advertising."
I already commented on this. There is very little in that article that talks about shunning. I cited the only paragraph, The main person talked about had started ads to influence members away from the Mormon church, but he had not been shunned. At least not in the way you use the word.
"Why on Earth would you think I’m changing the context from that?"
You said that shunning was the main focus of the article when it is in fact barely there at all. A question for you. You are obsessed with shunning. Were you once subjected to it?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 20, 2019 17:57:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 20, 2019 17:16:57 GMT
Many years ago I was in a long distance relationship with a Scottish girl. She flew to Thailand for a visit and after a very hard week at work where I discovered on Friday that my boss was advertising a job description to replace me, we headed off to a beach resort for the weekend. After dinner there was a stage show by the pool and I became aware that she did not look happy. I asked if anything was wrong and she made a face and pointed at me. I asked what she meant and she said she was homesick. That seemed odd as she had only left home two days earlier, and I said so. She then said that she wanted to return to where people gave her unconditional love. I was tired but had been OK company I thought. She said to look at the couple around us. Yeah, some were hugging and nuzzling a bit and she indicated I was being remiss in not attempting the same. Well, I had been in Thailand for years. and it was considered very bad form to show affection like this in public. This did not make her any friendlier towards me and the evening ended very coldly. The next day we had a conversation about her comments. I said that there was no such thing as "unconditional love" except perhaps from a pet dog, but then I qualified that with the thought that if you stop feeding your dog, it might stop showing affection. I then said that perhaps only God offers unconditional love. But is it true that God offers unconditional love? If we do not believe in God and obey Him are we damned? If so any love from Him would be pretty conditional. This girlfriend and myself were Mormons. Mormon theology is non-Trinitarian and was just thinking today how that may have been part of my thinking in the discussion I had back then. God the Father had an idea that his spirit children would come to Earth, and be born in mortality. But they would sin and because of an eternal law not even in His control, they could not return to Him as was desired. Lucifer had a plan to force everybody to obey which was rejected. But Jehovah (who would become Jesus) said he would lead them back to the Father but acting as a redeemer between the Father and man, with man retaining free choice. I am now thinking this frees Jesus from the harshness of forcing anybody to believe or be damned. It allows Him to extend unconditional love.
Anyway, it was a rather moot point when it came to the girlfriend. A couple of years later she declared that the only way we could be together was for me to quite my job and move to Scotland. She said that I had no friends and that she was not going to give up her job, her house, or her friends. She backed off a bit on my friends and said that although I had some they really didn't matter. I had explained that my chances of getting a job in the UK as a foreign national were not very good at that point in time, and if I worked another five years I could take early retirement with full health benefits. I brought up how her occupation as a teacher was far more portable than mine as a geologist. I said that I would be in far better shape at that point to locate where I wished, and I could choose Scotland for at least part of the year, if not all. She didn't budge from her position. So much for unconditional love. Her love had some rather heavy conditions placed upon it.
Does anybody here think that unconditional love exists? Does a mother have unconditional love for a child? My mother showed anger when I disobeyed her, and told me what I had to do to get back into her good graces. Somehow this did not seem to be unconditional to me. I had a friend at the time that said a woman never really fully loves a guy, but guys give her children and she comes to sort of love them through these children.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 19, 2019 19:17:51 GMT
|
|
|
So...
Feb 19, 2019 19:11:52 GMT
Post by geode on Feb 19, 2019 19:11:52 GMT
I think this thread is......................................... .... .. ..... Dead? This thread can surprise you.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 19, 2019 15:33:54 GMT
I remember somebody once posting a video on the old board that he claimed was an exorcism. It was literally five minutes of a woman lying on the floor pretty much motionless, except that she would roll around a little every now and again. The poster was like "See! Proof positive of demons!" These kinds of videos are desperate and kind of sad. Hopefully those around her weren't confusing a stroke or a bout of epilepsy for demon possession. Now that would be scary. No, because she was "delivered" from being possessed at the end of the video. Well, at least she got up and started talking.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 19, 2019 13:25:07 GMT
geode Never in a million years would I have been able to read all of that, but I'll give the last thing a shot. This isn't true. I'm not even sure where you got it considering I said this: This seems to just boil down to you sticking to a view of me certainly not supported by my typings. Here are the things to take away from my statements: 1. Religions are free to determine how to handle apostates within their religion regardless of precedent but certainly if there is one. 2. This condoning of religious freedom is not the same thing as me agree to the beliefs of the religion whether we are talking about JW's, Mormons, atheists, or whatever. 3. There is NO evidence to suggest Jesus or any Christian welcomes enemies of their teaching as they would a believer. Prove me wrong. Sinners and non-believers are not inherently enemies. Apostates always are so it makes perfect sense why any religion would want their followers to avoid them. I guess I better add that this doesn't mean the apostate is wrong. 4. I have no dog in the fight of shunning I can talk to whoever I wish to, so it remains silly to connect me to JW's version of it which still remains indistinguishable from the Mormon one imo which makes your whining about it even odder. You have taken every opportunity for years on the board to defend shunning by the Mormons and JWs. That comment you made about apostates really is not about shunning.
"1. Religions are free to determine how to handle apostates within their religion regardless of precedent but certainly if there is one."
Yes, this is true. But it doesn't mean that what they do is in alignment with what Christ taught. You made a bunch of claims that He would never associate with unbelievers or sinners. I cited instances where he did just that. I notice you are ignoring this, the main point of my last post.
"2. This condoning of religious freedom is not the same thing as me agree to the beliefs of the religion whether we are talking about JW's, Mormons, atheists, or whatever."
I don't even know what you mean by this.
"3. There is NO evidence to suggest Jesus or any Christian welcomes enemies of their teaching as they would a believer. Prove me wrong. Sinners and non-believers are not inherently enemies. Apostates always are so it makes perfect sense why any religion would want their followers to avoid them. I guess I better add that this doesn't mean the apostate is wrong."
Here we go with your moving the goal posts again. Were we not talking about "enemies" before, or at least I wasn't. You were claiming that non-believers and sinners were shunned by Jesus. You basically equated apostates as sinners. So now you are moving your position. I think apostates by most people's definition just stop believing. Are you using a JW definition? Some actively attempt to tear down the faith, but most do not.
"4. I have no dog in the fight of shunning I can talk to whoever I wish to, so it remains silly to connect me to JW's version of it which still remains indistinguishable from the Mormon one imo which makes your whining about it even odder."
For somebody who has no dog in the fight, you sure promote shunning very strongly. I already explained the the JW concept and Mormon concept of shunning are vastly different. The Mormons do not have a formal policy of shunning like the JWs...remember that part? Apparently not.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 19, 2019 8:58:25 GMT
This is considered a cult film? Good question. It is extremely well known and popular, which is not typical for a cult film.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 19, 2019 8:56:01 GMT
"Rawls – drawing on social contract theory that he calls 'highly Kantian,' Rawls posits a political philosophy of social cooperation and distributive justice."
Lou Rawls?
|
|