MovieChat Forums > MaximRecoil
MaximRecoil (4831)
Posts
Tricked again!
Duracell Durabeam flashlights
The Borden twins could have easily duplicated Angier's Tesla machine version of the trick
The idea that it's possible to neutralize alkaline battery leakage is a myth
The 2024 "reality" has to be a simulation...
If I ruled the world...
Since when do phasers draw blood?
Where did the idea that this movie has bad special effects come from?
So they head out from Earth toward the sun at about warp 8...
Modern digital storage technology is amazing
View all posts >
Replies
That's an overly broad category. From the dawn of movie making until about the 21st century, the average runtime of a movie was less than 2 hours. There must be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of movies in that category. I have 143 movies on my hard drive and another 64 movies on Blu-ray, and almost all of them are under 2 hours.
"I thought MC was online already, but took off when Imdb shutdown."
Only for a few days. This site was specifically created to be an archive / unofficial continuation of the IMDb forums, prompted by them shutting down.
"Imdb announced shutdown on Feb 6 and implemented Order 66 on Feb 20. So Jim set up MC in 9 days?"
8 days or less (this site was actually up on the 14th - https://web.archive.org/web/20170214210317/http://www.moviechat.org/). I signed up here and made a bookmark on February 17:
https://i.imgur.com/YHtaDV8.png
At the time I was skeptical that he would be able to archive the entirety of the vast IMDb forums in such a small amount of time, which is why I wrote the word "supposedly" in the bookmark.
"Japan is still a male-oriented country. Again, the OP topic is about a 100% female-only world."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, and your tacit concession that Japan is an example which refutes your asinine assertion, is noted.
"Gender discrimination wouldn't exist since there would be no men."
Thank you, Captain Obvious. What of it?
"Again, you miss the point of the topic - No men exists!!!"
I haven't missed any point at all, let alone "again," and this is another non sequitur from you.
"Women would fill the gaps like WW2."
Already addressed, and therefore dismissed.
"Both the boys and girls were given cooking lessons before the experiment. The boys refused to cook!"
Your non sequitur is dismissed (children are irrelevant).
"Divorce doesn't end responsibility for children."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, and your tacit concession that you were wrong when you claimed "Husbands and fathers are notorious for abandoning their families," is noted, since it's women who break up families far more often than men due to being the ones who initiate divorces about 66-75% of the time.
"It's mainly women who care for children and elderly parents. Why?"
Because that's something they're naturally well-suited for, which is why they make good nurses and elementary school teachers. It wouldn't help them get out of the stone age if men had never existed.
"Research on the topic shows women would thrive."
No, it doesn't, and history along with simply observing the reality of the world around you shows that they wouldn't.
"Men would war and rape each other."
This oft-repeated mere assertion of yours is dismissed.
"Boys house failed. Female house succeeded."
Your non sequitur is dismissed (children are irrelevant).
"Women would likely teach each other needed skills in order to survive."
Survival alone, assuming that they could even do that much, doesn't help them get out of the stone age.
"Women would do fine if men disappeared especially since distractions like war and violent crime wouldn't exist."
You live in a fantasy world, simp. There are plenty of places on Earth with no current war and a very low violent crime rate (the entire country of Japan to name one example), and it doesn't change the fact that men are primarily responsible for buildings, infrastructures, technology, government, hard labor, the food industry, and so on.
"Men discriminate against women then brag about wonen not being in certain occupations."
Reporting facts isn't "bragging," and discrimination is logically justified in most cases, because in most cases, the best person for a job is a man. If a competition were devised for almost any job you can name, one which tests performance in all relevant areas of the job, and there were sufficient incentive to attract a huge number of competitors, the winner would be a man. If the job is primarily physical, a man wins (just look at professional sports). If the job is primarily mental, a man wins (just look at the world of chess, or the entirety of scientific and technological achievements throughout human history).
"Women would do fine."
Only in your delusional fantasy world.
"Boys house failed vs Girls house thrived."
This thread is about men and women, not children, and it's therefore irrelevant, like I already told you. It would also be very easy to get any results you want from such an "experiment," simply by choosing which boys and girls you include. I've been cooking for myself on a regular basis since I was about 7 years old.
"Husbands and fathers are notorious for abandoning their families and women do it all alone anyway."
Uh huh. When it comes divorces, it is the woman who initiates them about 66-75% of the time, so like pretty much everything you think you know; you have it ass backwards.
"You hate and disrespect women"
Since this laughable assertion of yours doesn't logically follow from anything I've said, consider your non sequitur dismissed out of hand.
"which only proves my point they would thrive without the negativity and discrimination holding them back."
Even if your premise had been true rather than a non sequitur, it wouldn't prove any such thing, obviously. Nothing can prove your asinine assertions, because they are sourced from your delusional fantasy world rather than the real world.
"Women would replace male workers like they easily did during WWII."
Uh huh. You need more than low-level workers. And they didn't entirely replace male workers; not even close. It was mostly males in their late teens to early twenties who served in WWII. Management, engineering, R&D, machining, the older segment of low-level workers, and so on, were largely unaffected.
"Women would organize and help each other like they do in real life in numerous women organizations and build functioning societies."
Primitive societies, once the existing infrastructure breaks down due to there being relatively few women with the skills or aptitude to maintain it.
"Women share feelings. That's what they do."
Again, what would that accomplish?
"Women wouldn't starve since they cook and grow food."
Hardly any women these days have ever grown any food. The same applies to men, for that matter, but at least the major farming operations that supply the grocery stores are primarily operated by men.
And who's going to fix the tractors when they break down? For that matter, who's going to change 500-pound tractor tires? Who's going to be able to swing a hammer hard enough to break a ball joint loose on old farm truck? Most women have trouble opening pickle jars. How do you think they'll fare when attempting jobs that require real strength?
"If you watch the all boys house vs all girls house experiment, it was the boys who were starving because they refused to cook or work. They spent a week eating candy and other junk. The entire house was destroyed by the end of the week."
Kids are irrelevant. Who built the house in the first place? Who invented/designed/developed the oven, stove, refrigerator, and other appliances? Who invented/designed/developed the machinery that stamped out the spoons, forks, and other utensils? Who founded and operates the major farms and food factories that supplied the food to the house in the first place?
"Women would thrive in utopian societies sharing feelings and helping each other. Women are just more nurturing."
LOL at you. We already know that men help each other just fine, which is why men are almost 100% responsible for this modern technological world we live in (which required, and continues to require, countless instances of cooperation among men). If men had never existed, and if you ignore the inability to procreate problem, women would still be living in the stone age.
"You're deluding yourself if you don't notice major gender differences in behavior."
Is that a joke? I've been pointing out those major differences, Slow Doug.
Are you a female or are you just a pathetic example of a male who has a brain that's wired like a female's?
"Women would share feelings"
What would that accomplish?
"build communities"
Because female carpenters are so common, right? Are you saying they would just herd together in existing houses, nearly all of which were built by men?
"and travel"
On foot? On horses? Or would they use existing motor vehicles, etc., nearly all of which were designed by and manufactured by men? And if so, how many female mechanics would there be to keep them running?
"Women do well without men."
Yeah, right. Let's see how well they do without using anything that was invented/designed/manufactured by men. That would eliminate nearly all products of electrical, structural, and mechanical engineering, for starters.
"Don't you notice that divorcees and widows are perfectly happy never being with another man while men rush to find another wife?"
LOL at you making shit up.
"Now you just need a virus killing off one gender."
As a best case scenario, they would go extinct within about a century, obviously, since there would be no way to procreate. Even if you magically eliminated the inability to procreate problem, women would eventually be living in a post-apocalyptic type society as existing technology and various infrastructures which they didn't invent nor design, broke down, and that's giving them the benefit of the doubt that most of them wouldn't die due to starvation within a short period of time.
Maybe that's why birthday anniversary celebrations originated in the first place, because the infant mortality rate used to be very high, enough so that it drastically skewed the average life expectancy way down to 30-something years old. Making it to that first birthday anniversary was probably considered to be quite a stroke of good fortune back then.
Celebrating birthday anniversaries is strange too. Celebrating any non-achievement is strange, unless it's a celebration of some big stroke of luck that has brought you good fortune, such as winning the lottery.
Some anniversaries make sense to celebrate, such as a wedding anniversary, because with the divorce rate being so high, keeping a marriage together for a long time is a noteworthy achievement.
"Kind of like some people like to talk about outdated technology."
You fail Analogies 101 forever.
Old technology has a use, and is a well-established area of interest for many people. There are forums dedicated to it, countless videos made about it on e.g., YouTube (for example, LGR and The 8-Bit Guy) with millions of subscribers and millions of views, and even museums featuring it. Also, people who are interested in technology can safely be assumed to be a good deal smarter than you, someone who thinks that making the one millionth post on a forum is somehow a noteworthy "achievement."
Post count is in no way comparable. Making a post here is not noteworthy in any way. There's no significant difficulty involved; there are no significant prerequisites nor any other significant barrier to entry; there is no peer review process to ensure a post meets a certain quality standard before it's published, and so on.
0 noteworthiness × 78,000 = 0 noteworthiness
I agree that it's harmless, but I don't see what's fun about it. It's like celebrating how many emails someone has sent over the years, or how many phone calls they've made.
The old IMDb forums didn't even display post counts.
View all replies >