MovieChat Forums > LanceDance > Replies
LanceDance's Replies
As much as I like Obi-Wan, he's more of a mid character when compared to other Jedi, movies and EU. Movie-wise, yes, he's the OG master; yes he held his own against Darth Maul, Grievous, and Anakin, but two of those three fights he won out of luck, while the third his opponent got cocky and made a stupid mistake. Kenobi still lost to Dooku in both fights we saw him in.
In my opinion, Mace Windu is the most bad-ass of all the Jedi when going by the movies. He beat Sidious when other masters died within seconds of fighting him, even Yoda struggled with him. He would've won had Anakin not intervened, and Windu was always hesitant of Anakin when other masters began to let their guard down around him. Windu had that drill sergeant attitude, and was played by Sam frickin' Jackson. Yoda himself wasn't confident in Kenobi's abilities against Sidious, but Windu was clearly powerful enough. He also killed Jango Fett, who Kenobi also struggled with.
I'm just going by the movies, but while they both also have more feats in EU stuff, even then, Windu outshines Kenobi by a lot for me. I always thought it was interesting how highly Anakin looks up to Obi-Wan, comparing him to Yoda and Windu in terms of wisdom and power respectively, even though he didn't really like him in Attack of the Clones. While Obi-Wan is wise, and not at all a bad fighter or weak in the force, he's not as nearly powerful or skilled as Windu, not even close.
The Kenobi-Vader fight was better, and kid Luke can actually run at a decent speed unlike kid Leia, but otherwise it was just alright, and the show overall was still mediocre. This show shouldn’t have been made, but if they had to do it, it should’ve been based on the Kenobi book from Legends.
Everyone’s acting was bad, especially Reva’s; it should’ve been about Ben and Luke; and while I think it should’ve been a western, Mando and Boba already did that, so maybe a Last Samuria-type show or something could’ve worked instead.
How was the Trump era in any way similar to Stormfront?
The democrats were the ones playing on peoples’ worst fears by spewing muh white supremacy, bigotry, sexism, racism, etc.
Liberals were the ones attacking people and destroying property just for having a different opinion.
The Dems and Libs are still doing that by the way, and have been for a long time. Their tactics change but their goals are the same: keep people hateful and divided, they’re easier to control that way.
I'm literally not, and I'm not gonna continue that thread over here any further.
🙄😒
Slander is oral, you’re thinking of libel, and you’re one to talk. You’re accusing me of things I didn't say. All I did was tell you what the Bible and Torah said back in the day, which reflects nothing about my own morals and humanity of which you tried to defame. Clearly you're here to troll, and so you will be treated like a troll.
lol I never justified slavery or said "it wasn't bad". Looks like you're just trolling after all and didn't really want a mature discussion in our other thread.
The Midianites, along with many other clans, were said to be terrible people and were enemies of the Israelites. However, some Midianites, like the Kenites, were allied with the Israelites. Enemies were either killed or enlsaved, while allies were treated like equals.
I never said "my slavery is good because its not as bad as their slavery".
What I said was slavery in Biblical times was legal and heavily regulated. Slaves that rebelled and misbehaved were dealt with, but malicious abuse and murder of slaves was punished. There were cruel masters back then, but it was not the norm, nor was it encouraged or permitted. While non-Hebrew slaves may have been treated differently, that doesn't mean it was acceptable for them to be treated worse. There are passages in the Torah stating how non-Hebrew slaves were to be treated well and not over-worked or humiliated.
Modern slavery is immoral and inhuman, and the legality was questionable even back then, so much so that countries fought to end it. Your notion of slavery is not like how slavery was in Biblical times for the most part, except in examples like Exodus were it was clearly condemned.
You're taking quotes out of context and misinterpreting them, as if on purpose. You're judging ancient cultures with a modern lens which isn't practical. Laws and morals change all the time, what you think is right today won't be right a few decades from now, let alone centuries or millennia. It wouldn't be fair for someone in the future to judge you, would it?
But you seem to have your mind already made up and would rather have a heated debate than a genuine discussion. If you want to learn and be open-minded, great, but if you want to stick to your pre-conceived notion of the Bible and behave immaturely, then you're just wasting time.
As I said, I'm not asking for bigotry, I'm just wondering why Christians always seem to be easy-pickings. But I have friends in the UK and I've heard and read stories. People over there are scared to say anything about Muslims, and law enforcement are afraid to act on reports involving Muslims out of fear of being accused of racism. At 4.5% of the population, which is sizable for an island like the UK, especially when they all congregate in the cities, they're getting far better treatment and protection than the majority of UK citizens.
I say "treason" hyperbolically, but it's not too far from the truth.
<blockquote>Yes saying “my slavery is good because its not as bad as their slavery” is not an argument.</blockquote>
When did I say that?
<blockquote>No no no no. it didn’t happen. Israeli archeologists have looked.</blockquote>
Again, irrelevant. Exodus shows a perfect example of modern-like slavery being condemned. The whole point of the story was freeing the slaves so that they could have a better life, and that that kind of behavior would not be tolerated. What was widely practiced and regulated was something closer to servants and servitude. But all the translations use the term "slave" so that's what I have to use in these discussions for consistency’s sake.
<blockquote>this makes NO FUCKING SENSE God didn't get "better at writing" </blockquote>
It was just a comparison to illustrate a point, my guy. A Christian would unquestionably see God as all-knowing and all-seeing, but a non-believer wouldn't. So a non-believer would need see him in a way that makes sense for him/her. There's the author comparison, the clock-maker comparison, etc. An author is all-knowing about the story he's writing, but that doesn't mean he's gonna start off perfect. Time to the writer is different to time in the story he's writing, but he still experiences time, he still gains experience and improves. If I was trying to convert you, I'd tell you God is perfect and omniscient and stuff, but I'm not.
<blockquote>reading is hard huh? again this make NO SENSE people have deadly allergies to almost every food</blockquote>
Is having a mature discussion hard for you? And really? "Almost every food"? Exaggerating doesn't help your argument, buddy. Besides, that was just one guess, just as God starting off immature was a guess. But we're getting off topic which was why didn't he condemn slavery. Slavery back then was very different to slavery of the last few centuries.
<blockquote>tell me you dont actually know the bible without telling me you dont know the bible</blockquote>
Did you even fully read all the quotes in your link? Let alone the Bible? lol
“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything." Does that sound like modern slavery to you? You really think the American Democrats or African slavers just let their slaves go after a short period of time? Again, laws back then were very different than now, morals back then were different to our morals now. If slaves misbehaved or rebelled, they were beaten, but masters were not encouraged or permitted to sadistically abuse them, let alone kill them. There were some cruel masters, but slaves were told to finish out their contract to any master, that's not the same as saying it's ok for masters to be cruel.
That skit kinda proved my point though. It wasn't really poking fun at Muslims so much as it was poking fun at people asking for jokes about Muslims. Since there's a sizable Muslim population in the UK where any negative comments about them are practically treated as treason, it makes sense that Stewart danced around the subject. Meanwhile, Christians are open-season even in Christian-dominant countries like America.
I'm aware that some shows like Futurama and South Park have made fun of Muslims, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about regular people on the internet who seem to have it in for Christians only.
<blockquote>which makes no sense. god isnt in time. god knows everything, every action and all things</blockquote>
I'm not speaking as a Christian, but as someone on the outside trying to find an explanation than can satisfy non-Christians. God seems all-knowing and timeless to his creations, much like how an author seems all-knowing to his characters. But the author only knows what story he's trying to tell, where it begins and ends. When he starts writing it, he'll be amateurish, but as he writes more stories, his writing will improve. Or you could say there was a scientific reason people couldn't eat shellfish at the time, which God knew of but the people wouldn't understand yet, so it was easier to just make it a law instead of just explaining the harms of eating shellfish with their primitive bodies, tools, and skillsets.
<blockquote>NOPE they were slaves. human chattel you had permission to beat</blockquote>
Nothing in the bible encouraged or permitted masters to beat their slaves. If the master beats or intentionally tries to kill the slave, the master is punished. If the slave's death was unintentional and within a time frame, they pay a fine. That might seem odd by our modern standards, but that's how it was. The master was still punished for any abuse no matter what.
<blockquote>There were no mass jewish slaves in Egypt</blockquote>
Whether you believe it happened or not is irrelevant, especially since you probably don't believe anything in the bible anyway. Slavery in that story resembles slavery as it's known today, and it was condemned. Servitude to a master and finishing your duties to him was practiced and regulated, even if those duties continue into your master's children, but suffering abuse from your master was not permitted.
<blockquote>yes religious texts of all sorts are full of "that thing is bad when it happens to our people. but god orders us to do it to others" </blockquote>
Israelis practiced slavery with each other as well though, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I won't speak of the other religious texts, so you'll have to take that up with their practitioners.
The mundane rules like not eating shellfish were from the Old Testament days. Think of it as a younger, less experienced God still seeing what he can do. The New Testament doesn’t have rules like that.
As for slavery, it would be more accurate to call them servants, and God said that they should not be abused, but treated well. Stuff like that was legal and normal back then.
Slavery as we know it, such as what the Jews endured under the Egyptians, was condemned, and there’s a whole arc called Exodus about freeing them so that they could start a new and better life elsewhere.
We’re talking about consent and sexual urges, so yes, that is what I was referring to.
You said the actor was a minor, even though he’s not. The character is currently 15, but like I said, teens have sex and fantasize about it, and there’s nothing wrong with just talking about it, especially when Netflix is provoking discussions about it.
The op was shit-talking about a teen’s sexual urges based on his behavior, nothing more.
All the OP asked was if Will was gay since Netflix keeps teasing it. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to discuss someone’s orientation, and let’s not pretend that teens in the height of puberty haven’t had sex, or fantasized about it.
Besides, if we’re gonna be technical, the actor is 17 as of this post, which is legal in most countries, including the one he lives in, so he’s not a minor.
I agree that money isn't everything, it certainly doesn't judge the quality of a movie, but it can be an indicator of people's interest in certain movies. "The Batman" may have gotten good reviews, and $700 million isn't bad, but compared to previous Batman films and even BvS, it's underwhelming, and this is Batman we're talking about, a certified cash cow.
The Amazing Spider-Man films made more than that, and they were still cancelled in favor of the MCU Spider-Man movies. I'm not saying the Battinson films will be cancelled, I'm suggesting that interest in Batman seems to be waning. You know something's gotta be wrong when more people were interested in watching Aquaman than Batman (or Superman for that matter).
Eh, a lot of major movies were saved by over-seas profits, including Star Wars, so American audiences are no less guilty than everyone else for contributing to Rise of Skywalker's box office. Besides, Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker made only half of what Force Awakens made, so clearly a lot of people were smart enough not support the rest of the sequel trilogy.
Nonetheless, declining interest in Batman is a problem. If Spider-Man can still bring in cash despite going through multiple reboots in a short amount of time, Batman has no excuse to not do the same.
Except Black Widow, Eternals, and Shang Chi all underperformed, and Morbius flopped, so clearly people look farther than the Marvel logo.
And how about the fact that Aquaman, another DC hero, made more money than Batman? Frickin’ Aquaman! Something’s wrong here.
I’d say that was more of a budget thing. The rebels being diverse makes sense, a diverse empire does not. 3 movies later and the empire was still consistently mostly white men despite the rebels being shown taking in more women and non-humans.
There are exceptions that can supersede species and gender, such as if you’re force sensitive or a genius tactician, and those skills are too good to not use. But pretending that it was common for there to have non-white, non-male, non-human you imperial soldiers? That’s a stretch.