MovieChat Forums > SolemnMime > Replies
SolemnMime's Replies
That is how it usually is with these types of people.
I can tolerate selfishness at a normal/fair rate (we all are to some extent sometimes) but when people just don't care and are only always out for themselves and don't care about anything they do/how it affects others, I can't consider that person any kind of friend of mine to say the least.
There are certain traits or behaviors that kind of paint a picture of peoples' intentions/character for me -- and when it comes to habitual procrastinating that often doesn't tell me very much good on its own (exceptions exist though).
What I find ideal is to never die.
You only live once, so make sure it doesn't end -- that would mean prolonging life or reversing aging/etc.
I don't necessarily believe nor disbelieve an afterlife, but what I do value and believe in is making my current life go on as long as possible (or forever).
The notion of just dying and accepting it doesn't sit well with me. I believe one day we should reach a place where dying is no longer necessary and the suffering/loss that comes along with it is eliminated too.
We would constantly keep living and "getting older" in the sense of time passing, but our bodies would keep regenerating themselves and we wouldn't actually need to look old/be slower/weaker/etc.
When you don't worry about ever dying, you have literally all of the time in the world to live and do things good for both yourself and others alike.
So my goal is to not worry about what I'll do in a fixed time period and accept death will happen inevitably, but focus on making my health better and being hopeful and pursuing not the sense of the life after but the ongoing life here and now.
Has anyone here heard of Bio Viva? They focus on anti-aging and ways to extend life specifically for older individuals by way of gene testing/etc., but anyone can contribute or get in on it.
The fact is that almost nobody tends to be really comfortable dying. Why should we always accept something we don't want/biologically wish to avoid? I say we don't accept it anymore and start believing that it may not be required if science can make us live longer or possibly forever some day.
Never would have imagined it being Kevin Costner initially, but I'm more familiar with hearing Tom Selleck's voice anyways.
Yeah, true. But when so many people like something, you sort of become the "odd one out" if you're the one/few that don't.
I think I recall saying I didn't like Breaking Bad once or something, and some people responded as if I was insane or something.
Think like going to a rally and being the only/one of the few against the majority and what that might entail/bring about.
Friends is pretty good, I think, but I don't like all episodes that much.
Ah. You probably got here from the front page then, right?
I noticed this there too. When some title is recently posted in + some other factors maybe, it shows on the home page.
Use it for my self/debt/improvement in ways/etc. I would think more in line with investing/ventures than just splurging, but it'd make sense to buy a property/real estate for me at least and see where to go from there.
I'd also allocate some to give to others (because why would I alone need ten million?). Not sure how I'd go about doing that, but it's something I'd definitely want to do with a huge surplus of money out of nowhere.
I'd also allocate some for research/aid/charities to help fuel science and help the human condition and such. I have some particular ideas in mind for what I'd do to help with science/research/etc.
Would also be good to help "give back" somehow with it too, since I'd be so well off that I should do that in some way/give it to help something more than myself only. I'd think with big money one should think of big things -- not just themselves only.
Sounds fun/exciting. You get to see a lot of different things traveling (and photography too, which is something I'd enjoy).
I'd like to travel at some point and experience living in various different places too.
Seeking out comedy in stand up format usually doesn't work well for me/make me laugh.
I tend to find funny in less direct or intended forms of humor -- or unexpected stuff I didn't anticipate to be really funny exactly. Not really easy to explain, but sometimes you may not find something funny because you're expecting it to be at some specific standard beforehand.
Going in without immediate or specific expectations sometimes works out better when it comes to humor (among other things).
Maybe it should be more the other way around then. Ha.
I mean it seems to make some sense in that case. They only get paid in likes though, but it's better than nothing maybe...
Many people seem to sometimes enjoy the comments on videos more than the actual videos (myself included).
You can even sometimes find more insight in a comment than in a video, which can be refreshing to see when it comes to certain points being made/illustrations/examples/etc. But many comments on popular videos or niche-type subjects sometimes seem to be posted with the intention of standing out beforehand it seems. I don't really bother with the "points game" anymore though when it comes to posting something obvious/satirical/bait-ish/etc. in particular places only just with the intention of getting attention/likes from it.
But I agree and usually find some comment sections pretty funny/interesting. The stuff posted in comments sometimes even amplifies the material in the video, which could be good or bad I suppose.
Yeah, it went up. It's still new, so the scores will jump around possibly until they reach more of an "equilibrium" of sorts.
Yeah, that's true. Dora the original show/cartoon is poorly rated on IMDb for some reasons, so maybe it's just the same thing happening to the movie too.
It doesn't look like a bad movie at all or anything like that, so I'll definitely consider it as something watchable.
There are some studies and such that suggest/link poverty with a higher likelihood of cognitive weaknesses/deficiencies/social issues/mental issues/IQ/etc.
I don't know if this may sound obvious or not, but the point is that poverty is bad for anyone period. Living in such a way just makes it more likely that you'll have a whole host of issues not just with lack of housing, but psychological/social/stress impact/overall health/etc.
I think it's wrong to say that being poor makes you just as capable as someone rich, when someone lacking resources of adequate living is more likely to be: stressed (impacting mental means somewhat); limited in diet, living style, opportunities that re-ingrain certain behaviors, attitudes, etc. (it's a psychological catch 22 in ways); and you overall feel more inadequate most likely.
This is the reason why I only really support Andrew Yang because he proposes direct, immediate rectifying of these issues and what they boil down to -- lack of money at the source. Other candidates want to work on "booming the economy" or making education free, but neither of those things help the innate problem that many issues stem and grow from.
What good is free education if you're still poor at the time and miserable? How many people on rock bottom are dying to start educating themselves when they're bound to be depressed, ill, and mentally exhausted?
What good is a "booming economy" when a growing number of people are financially insufficient? If you have the majority of the people struggling paycheck-to-paycheck, where does this "boom" come from & who mostly benefits then?
What good is "healthcare for all" when your very health issues are caused by poverty, misery & stress? You are treating the woes caused by the very lack of money, which having had it in the first place could've likely avoided said woes.
It's like trying to get a fix for something that could've avoided being broken in the first place, but you ignore that part.
Interesting point, although controversial. Here's the way I see it:
Yes, there is still some stereotyping/discrimination/etc. based to some degree on race/ethnicity/etc. alone -- that's not deniable.
There is also the fact that some people -- even in cases of powerful/influential/wealthy people who may not even be white -- use the "race card" in order to have a crutch/failsafe to lean on at times of personal issues.
For example, a rich celebrity who may be, say, black could say, "Us blacks are held back more than whites," or something of that nature with the irony being that they personally are well ahead of anyone in many ways, race/ethnicity/etc.
Sure, there are downsides that come for some people, and there is still racism/etc. that can obviously be problematic. The thing I don't like is people using 'X' background/culture/etc. as a constant crutch, excuse or weapon to try and seek to gain from it rather than address any downsides that come with it & not worry about it being their stepping stone.
Like imagine someone using their impoverished position as a means to direct success due to pity or such. I would not feel honorable or proud personally if I knew and used my race/culture/background as a specific, direct factor to my success in some way. I have even refused the idea of things like, "Help a Hispanic/Spanish/etc." funds or such because I don't want to use these racially/ethnically/culturally tied methods to help raise my rank or such because I have that background. I want to improve myself without anyone knowing or worrying about my background, leaving those kind of things out of the equation of my person/success/nature overall.
It's not about being "too proud" but about wanting to grow and improve without attributing it to some innate inability that requires some other help specific to me as a person of 'X' background or you know....
I'd want to simply say, "I became successful," not because I'm Spanish/African/etc. and that I got help for those reasons alone.
Was definitely a surprise for me upon seeing that soon after waking up.
It almost felt a bit eerie or such when I glanced at that on CNN/etc. on the TV for a few seconds.
IMDb score is only 4.7 as of now I think.
I might still see it, but only if it's maybe on-demand/catch a glimpse of it/etc.
I wouldn't really want to pay to see it personally -- so maybe if someone else offers or etc. I might.
Don't mean that in a bad way either -- just don't really go to the theaters much anyways, but yeah...
Yeah. I knew nothing of him or the Peat community/health advice/etc. until more recently.
Cool to see a "Peater" here.
It is kind of like reducing portions to lose weight.
You can reduce the portions, but if you're still eating small portions of calorie-dense junk or etc. along with complete meals and other empty calories in between, you're bound to gain body fat.
Calories (among other things), in this case, matter much more than portion size.
The way I grew to understood losing fat was that it isn't about portions or entirely about types of food (but they do influence it) -- it is largely about calories overall, which many people have no clue how many they get to start with (but other things matter too -- just don't want to make this post too long). Some people who don't gain weight may attribute it to their metabolism and vice-versa -- but with so many people not even really eating consciously/looking at what they eat or measuring calories in any form, it's easy to see how these ideas can be off. A person can think they have a fast or good metabolism, which is why they are so skinny (but they might only be getting ~1,500 calories a day or less).
Some may track their exercise, but they might undo all of that hard work by splurging or scarfing down too many empty calories still too often/eating not so good foods, which may impede metabolism/hormones/etc. somewhat and creates a vicious cycle of overexercising and not seeing as good progress, if any.
RayPeatForum
YouTube
Instagram
IMDb
Amazon
Ebay
The occasional visit to some StackExchange sites too
Definitely open to joining new communities though.
Good points. I forgot for some reason the effects of global warming. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the immediate problems at hand rather than ones soon to come. Global warming is definitely up there with what I've said.
It's also true that there is just too much screw arounds/corrupt stuff in the government, which I why I pointed out government spending. Something recently I heard about a [b]trillion[/b] or so dollars on the defense budget/military spending/some bill passed.
Why would so much money go to something like the defense budget? What are we defending ourselves from that we need to pour extremely high amounts of money in to? It's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard of government money going to in excess.
All of this while at the same time you hear people arguing over how increased spending anywhere else might be a "problem." I think personally that spending an extreme amount of money only on defense/military is a problem to begin with, since there's so much more that could use that money than just weapons and military, which is already pretty advanced.
I'm not saying there should be a low military/defense budget, but how do you justify billions upon billions to even hitting the trillion mark when it comes solely to military? I can't rationalize that -- especially when you look in to endless other areas some of that money could've gone to that could've made way bigger of a difference overall to people and the country.