The Big Picture: Arch-Villains

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Aiddon:
the thing is so-called "fast food" is nowhere near as bad for you as stuff in a lot of sit-down restaurants. When at was at Anime Central nearly two weeks ago I ate at Giordano's (a famous Chicago pizza chain) and I don't even wanna THINK about how many calories that pie had.

I am a big fan of the California laws that resturaunts must post nutrition info openly. Its a bit shocking and I think people think twice when they see the numbers. Oh that large freis is 200 more calaries....maybe I wont. Not a solution but its a start.

Bluntly, I was too engrossed by exactly how full of shit the Joe Camel bitching became to even pay attention to the rest of the video.

As a bit of background, I'm 31 years old, grew up in the Mountains of North Carolina, and was raised by a twice divorced father who smoked 2 and a half packs a day from his stint in Vietnam until his stroke in 2006.

I was in my early teens during the Marlboro Miles and Camel Cash promotions, and even have one of the duster jackets from the last year of the Miles promotion. (It's pretty nice. Comfy, too.) This was near the end of the Joe Camel era, when people like you were ready to murder Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds executives, but were still quite happy to allow the Silver Bullet and the King of Beers to be advertised during Saturday morning cartoons. (Fucking hypocrites.) That said, do you know how many times I've smoked a cigarette, or anything else, for that matter, in my life? Zero. Why? Because inhaling smoke has never appealed to me. Meanwhile, we're bombarded, on a near constant basis, with imagery that openly proclaims that a person is downright anti-social unless they drink. Where the fuck's the line?

Let me try to put this in another way. You already have a video bitching about Michael Vick. But, Michael Vick is still young enough that he could include Garfield in his list of childhood influences. Garfield liked to kick the ever-loving shit out of Odie on a regular basis. Where are the government sanctions on newspaper comics? They endorse animal cruelty, right? Oh, shit! Jon lets Garfield eat too much! That's abuse, in and of itself!

And, before you say it, yes, I know that's absurd. The fact that it's absurd is the entire fucking point. At what point does a person legitimately lose responsibility for own's own decisions? Frankly, I think you're a fucking idiot.

You're right. And also let's not forget fast food doesn't cause addiction or any kind of damage to people around those who eat it.

Wow, great episode, but you had to ruin the feel of it with that last bit about Pirates 4...

As Johnny Depp's character said in "Secret Window" : the ending is what really matters.

But seriously I liked very much what you talked about here, but I'll give you a hint :

If you make an entire Escape to the Movies episode about a movie, in which you go on about how much you hate it, we will get it, not everyone will agree with you, but you don't have to shove it into every show or article you create.

It somehow ruins the other important things you say here ...

While watching the show, I was like, this is interesting, quite a good opinion overall, and after hearing that last bit - oh c'mon this again, why end like this, I don't even care what you had to say before.

Ok maybe I do care if I wrote all this here, but still the ending left a bad taste.

Well Bob, I agree with you, but as far as I know bad eating habits can just be as bad as smoking, as prolonged use of tobacco can lead to lung cancer, red meat is also linked to coronary diseases, that has to be taken into account.

Also, it's obvious that Joe Camel gets more sex than Ronald McDonald. Smoke kids, it may kill you, but at least it makes you look cool...until you are in chemo, that is not so cool.

I seriously though this was going to be a video explaning why the Joker is a great villian.

Sikratua:
Bluntly, I was too engrossed by exactly how full of shit the Joe Camel bitching became to even pay attention to the rest of the video.

As a bit of background, I'm 31 years old, grew up in the Mountains of North Carolina, and was raised by a twice divorced father who smoked 2 and a half packs a day from his stint in Vietnam until his stroke in 2006.

I was in my early teens during the Marlboro Miles and Camel Cash promotions, and even have one of the duster jackets from the last year of the Miles promotion. (It's pretty nice. Comfy, too.) This was near the end of the Joe Camel era, when people like you were ready to murder Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds executives, but were still quite happy to allow the Silver Bullet and the King of Beers to be advertised during Saturday morning cartoons. (Fucking hypocrites.) That said, do you know how many times I've smoked a cigarette, or anything else, for that matter, in my life? Zero. Why? Because inhaling smoke has never appealed to me. Meanwhile, we're bombarded, on a near constant basis, with imagery that openly proclaims that a person is downright anti-social unless they drink. Where the fuck's the line?

Let me try to put this in another way. You already have a video bitching about Michael Vick. But, Michael Vick is still young enough that he could include Garfield in his list of childhood influences. Garfield liked to kick the ever-loving shit out of Odie on a regular basis. Where are the government sanctions on newspaper comics? They endorse animal cruelty, right? Oh, shit! Jon lets Garfield eat too much! That's abuse, in and of itself!

And, before you say it, yes, I know that's absurd. The fact that it's absurd is the entire fucking point. At what point does a person legitimately lose responsibility for own's own decisions? Frankly, I think you're a fucking idiot.

Maybe you should have watched the video because you agree with The main point of the video. SUPRISE! You didnt pay attention and came to cuss out people online, Way to go. The video clearly said the line was drawn then the companies LIED ABOUT THE HEALTH RISKS. So how can someone legitimately take responsibility for their actions when they are told those actions are NOT harmful?

NooNameLeft:
I seriously though this was going to be a video explaning why the Joker is a great villian.

Yes I thought it was going to be a examination oh heros and their villian and the they need eachother dynamic. I just watched Megamind so thats probably where I got it.

Great definition of natural selection, picture of Peter Griffin was very fitting. I'm not sure about the McDonald's argument though. Because they are indeed marketing to children with Happy Meals and Ronald, but him not that much. I've experienced it many times that parents, who push their kids towards healthy foods, just sometimes give up and go for junk food and when that happens they usually choose the golden arches because kids cry that they want to go there because they'll get toys with their meals. This is where the natural selection comes into play, because some parents just give up completely on pushing a healthier diet rather then to hear all the crying and whining of kids. These kids then become obese and start racking up health bills, if you don't want the state to pick up the bill, you need to start solving the problem from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for personal responsibility and hate it when people point fingers at governments and corporations to take blame for their stupidity, but I can understand some of their points as well.

Sikratua:
Bluntly, I was too engrossed by exactly how full of shit the Joe Camel bitching became to even pay attention to the rest of the video.

As a bit of background, I'm 31 years old, grew up in the Mountains of North Carolina, and was raised by a twice divorced father who smoked 2 and a half packs a day from his stint in Vietnam until his stroke in 2006.

I was in my early teens during the Marlboro Miles and Camel Cash promotions, and even have one of the duster jackets from the last year of the Miles promotion. (It's pretty nice. Comfy, too.) This was near the end of the Joe Camel era, when people like you were ready to murder Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds executives, but were still quite happy to allow the Silver Bullet and the King of Beers to be advertised during Saturday morning cartoons. (Fucking hypocrites.) That said, do you know how many times I've smoked a cigarette, or anything else, for that matter, in my life? Zero. Why? Because inhaling smoke has never appealed to me. Meanwhile, we're bombarded, on a near constant basis, with imagery that openly proclaims that a person is downright anti-social unless they drink. Where the fuck's the line?

Let me try to put this in another way. You already have a video bitching about Michael Vick. But, Michael Vick is still young enough that he could include Garfield in his list of childhood influences. Garfield liked to kick the ever-loving shit out of Odie on a regular basis. Where are the government sanctions on newspaper comics? They endorse animal cruelty, right? Oh, shit! Jon lets Garfield eat too much! That's abuse, in and of itself!

And, before you say it, yes, I know that's absurd. The fact that it's absurd is the entire fucking point. At what point does a person legitimately lose responsibility for own's own decisions? Frankly, I think you're a fucking idiot.

You're kind of arguing the same point as him. That personal responsibility matters.

The distinction is that CHILDREN aren't completely cognizant and able to make informed decisions. Anyway, I'm the same age as you and where I grew up, a place where every family owned at least a few horses for practical reasons. Cowboys were cool. Guess what brand EVERYONE smoked in high school? Marketing works on many people. Now, I don't think that the Marlboro man is what caused them to smoke. It did however help them make their purchasing decision.

I don't think an 'all advertising mascots or none' is a solution. That's ridiculously black and white.

I remember the reason when I wanted to go to McDonald's and other places when I was young was because I wanted a cheeseburger, fries, milkshake etc. Things that weren't normally at my house, and in most cases they had more flavor than what would be made at my house. Never once in my childhood did I say, "Mom, I want to go to McDonald's because Ronald is there!" or any other whacked out reason. Really if you think of it has any mascot in the history of advertisement ever made you or convinced you to think you need their product? Also I like how he took the last few moments to let us know AGAIN that he didn't like the Priates movie... nice one Bob'O :/

I'm not going to disagree that Camel Joe needed to get out of rotation, nor will I disagree with the ideas that you portray in this episode, however, people are dumb. People are dumb because we live in a shitty world. People are also lazy, and will generally take the fastest way out of doing something, because of the fact that they're dumb and lazy. Unfortunately, we also live in a world that's made of shades of gray, with almost no absolute rights or wrongs. We also live in a world with death in it, which ultimately life experiences, expectations, and senses of morality aren't always at the same point.

TL/DR version - We live in a shitty world where people die. People have different ideas and expectations of themselves and others.

yeah defending a multi billion dollar company for doing bad stuff (and that's not selling unhealthy food) should be a top priority of every citizen. if you can't find anything wrong with mcds and consorts, you might just no looking hard enough or liking it too much. you draw the line, where people get hurt by other people and in the case of mcdonalds that line has been crossed indefinitely. do you really think they'll just outright accept open competition or real information about their products if they can help it? when was the last time a corp. like mcd, actually did something morally correct, without being TOLD so hundreds of times, by thousands of people giving them a bad image (that's all the care about)? right... you figure it out for yourself. you sure sound clever enough... and yeah. those last two examples of yours. you just showed, that there's no line, because those two were equally acceptable bad and good from your point of view.

Hooray for natural selection...?

Always a delight to hear Bob's view on the world each tuesday. May not always agree, but its a valid opinion instead of the usual irrational rage that is so common on forums.

OT: went down 10kg last year, and what did I do? Which fabolous diet did I spend thousands of dollars on?

The "Put down the fucking fork"-diet. Its even cheaper than not being on a diet!

Parents can blame the world for their obese child as much as they want, but it all boils down to them giving em more food than they can work off... EVERY day! McDonald's dont need a mascot to lure children, they just need to promise parents a quick and lazy way to feed kids.

I agree with most of it, however attacking parents is silly. I do believe that parents should be more informative about the science behind the food being eaten by their kids and they should work to have their kids eat better food. However I think enforcing regulation on parents' behaviors, the fast food industry, or their advertising is not the way to solve the problem. People need to think for themselves.

But jumping down people's throats for not wanting regulations? I'm not really down with that. It's natural to not want to be allow to do X, Y, or Z. Even if some bureaucrat or scientist says so. After all, WHO is having a report on cell phone use causing cancer come out sometime in the next year. Would you like a regulation for the amount of time on your cell phone or are you mature enough to handle it on your own?

You said a lot of smart things in this episode about MODERATION and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and to specifically quote "where does it end?". But you already accepted and praised the beginning, i.e. Joe Camel, so it is pretty disingenuous for you to even ask where it ends.

Don't give me any crap about "it's in degrees" or "gray areas". Once you accept that someone else makes health choices for you and your kids, you have given up the priveledge of deciding for yourself.

Well, Bob, the matter of fact is that you are hardly a fitness role model. You have a bad attitute towards food. :/

ace_of_something:
You're kind of arguing the same point as him. That personal responsibility matters.

The distinction is that CHILDREN aren't completely cognizant and able to make informed decisions. Anyway, I'm the same age as you and where I grew up, a place where every family owned at least a few horses for practical reasons. Cowboys were cool. Guess what brand EVERYONE smoked in high school? Marketing works on many people. Now, I don't think that the Marlboro man is what caused them to smoke. It did however help them make their purchasing decision.

I don't think an 'all advertising mascots or none' is a solution. That's ridiculously black and white.

The problem with your logic, and by extension, bombadilillo, since you both responded to me with nearly identical arguements, is that you're both ignoring the fact that outright marketting for tobacco products has been, for all intents and purposes, non-existant for almost 40 years. "You're marketting to children!" They aren't marketing, at all. By law, they can't. At least, not on television. That's why those mascots came to be. With the loss of television as an advertising medium, tobacco companies had to rely soly on print ads. They had to get their point across in a single image. So, they were forced to do whatever was required to get attention to their product, in as short a span as possible. I believe that this falls into the "Nice Job Breaking It, Hero" trope.

But, onto bombadilillo's comment, because I don't want to double post, did they lie about health risks? No. How can I say that? Simple. They used and abused the hell out of loopholes and technicalities. Do cigarettes kill people? No. Why? Because it's the smoke that does the damage. "But, people die because they use a tobacco product as intended." Well, a firearm's intended use is to shoot a bullet at something. And, the arguement could certainly be made, with a great deal of success, that games like Call of Duty are made with the intent of glamourizing the firearm. I don't watch the news very often, so I don't know if this has actually been done recently. But, if Call of Duty glamourizes firearm use, Bulletstorm Rule 34s that bitch.

I know what some people are going to think/say. "But, guns don't kill the user if used as intended." There's one problem with that logic. There is absolutely nothing in the owner's manual that expressly says "And, don't point the end with the hole in it at yourself." A gun's intended use is to point the end with the hole at something that you wish to destroy, and pull the trigger, enabling an explosion in the chamber which sends a projectile to do the destroying. "Destroy and kill shit" is pretty much the sole intent of a firearm. By the way, this is also true of the sword and the mace.

Yeah, I know. "Hunting." Did I miss a meeting where it was decided that hunting no longer involved the ending of animal life, in order to supply human beings with food/clothing? The point is, if pushed, I could name about a dozen things that, when used exactly as intended, do very little other than directly end life, and do so MUCH faster than a lifetime's worth of cigarettes or other tobacco products. In fact, a single cigarette, to the best of my knowledge, has NEVER killed anyone. Try to say the same about a single firearm or a single bullet.

Having watched the video again, forcing myself to skip past the cigarette bitching, I found that Bob's points were almost well done. I say "almost" because, when taken in concert with his commentary on how people aren't responsible for smoking, and cigarette companies are the devil, he really does show himself to be exceedingly hypocritical.

The problem at hand is right we try and protect things that do not need protecting. Case in point "Failure is always an option..."

That point means no matter what it is a result is a result. So whatever happens and we learn from it the better. The problem is some want money, because they cannot accept the failure, then there are others that just hate something at one point and then use it as there punching bag.

So when the two points meet then hell has to pay for every once else.

But what do I know I am just think of others as test subjects....

Actually Bob, Obama has blamed video games for a lack of exercise.

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/06/16/president-obama-dont-spend-all-day-playing-video-games-go-exercise/

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/02/20/obama-campaign-theme-video-games-as-metaphor-for-underachievement

That's just two quick links because there is so much of this stuff. As I post about all the time, video games are the political boogieman of the current generation, because they are easy to attack as opposed to dealing with other biggier issues.

Obama tries to present himself as the "hip, with it" President, and appeal to slackers in muich the same way as Michael Moore, while at the same time being as bad, or worse, when it comes to targeting video games, and other kinds of fandom based behaviors.

As the first article tries to misdirect it goes on about how "there is nothing wrong with this message unless your a parent whose afraid of unknown unknowns" that's kind of BS. Kids stay inside with those video games largely because the days of the frisky kids running all over the neighborhoods having their adventures are gone. They were killed by laws, since after all people don't want kids running through their yards, especially given the liability it puts on the property owner (ie kid falls down or hurts themselves on a piece of garden equipment, it's the property owner's fault not the kid who shouldn't have been in the yard to begin with, as a result of various rulings). Not to mention all those civil liberties laws that make dealing with child predators nearly impossible, since you can't pro-actively pursue it an have to wait for someone to do something illegal... like actually molest a child. All the "Stranger Danger" stuff doesn't matter when we're in an era where the child predators have become advanced enough where they are more likely to just use a low voltage taser to subdue a kid given a moment alone, and then drag them into the van or car, rather than try and lure them in with candy. Basically a serious predator, white slaver, or other threat might be pretty rare in society but the law is inadequete to dealing with these problems where they exist, especially seeing as they have adapted to the point where some kid screaming "Stranger Danger" isn't a deterrant, they are prepared for it. Of course these things and others get into big issues. In order for kids to go outside do we remove laws for parental supervision due to the modern requirement of both parents working just to make ends meet? Make it the responsibility of the owner of playgrounds and such to ensure the safety of children, but also prevent towns and private owners from closing them down. Do we make it so that property owners have no legal rights if the person entering their property is young enough? Kids won't respect tresspassing laws, and the parents won't let them out to wonder if they are afraid of being held responsible. Do we allow pro-active enforcement of child molestation laws, allowing people to be run down and arrested for "obvious intent" rather than taking the reactive approach we do with everything else? Saying "video games are the problem, and why kids don't go outside, and thus responsible for obesity epidemics" is an easy dodge to avoid addressing those much bigger issues. It would probably be political suicide (at least for re-election chances) if a politician chose to take action on any one of those matters. Telling the crotchedy old man who got tired of those "damn kids" on his lawn and lawyered up that he now has to let them onto his property, and is what's more responsible for their potential injury? Millions upon millions of people are going to object to that on principle, if for no other reason that they have to work too, and will have nobody home to watch the kids that might get onto their land.... leading to unavoidable legal action from injuries that WILL happen, that the property owner could not even possibly prevent. Needless to say that is a "big issue" and no politician would ever weather that, or anything similar to it... as a result issues are left unresolved, and lead to other issues. We aren't even looking for a way to make that work fairly, because in the end lots of people will be upset no matter what you do.

The point of that rant is, that while Bob might have been being sarcastic, and knowing that such issues exist... just in case he somehow doesn't realize it (or other people don't get the issue), we're already going here.

As far as Mcdonalds goes, well there are other issues involved there as well. Sure, parenting is hard work, and parents have to learn to put their foot down. On the other hand it's a lot like the above, in a society where both parents work to make ends meet, that means not only does Junior as often or not wind up a latchkey kid, but there is nobody in shape to prepare proper meals. Add to it, the gender most emotionally and tempermentally geared to raising children: mothers, are discouraged from being home makers even when it's financially viable to do so. Every minute of every day we're subjected to propaganda telling women to go out and have a career, with homemaking being treated as something base and wrong. In a pinch men can be parents and stay home with the kids, but they are much less suited for it (and no, I'm not going to get into this right now). The bottom line is that again, we're looking at the destruction of the family structure by society, and needless to say there is fallout from that. With nobody to raise the children except maybe a couple hours a day, we're dealing with no supervision for them to go outside and play, and a case where dinner is a matter of various fast food and takeout places that can be visited on the way home from work, so everyone can have something in their belly before exhausted mom and dad collapse and get ready for another day in the grind tomorrow.

Even when you get past the whole "get back in the kitchen woman" negative stereotype of restoring the family unit, and open the door for men to potentially be doing the same thing, you still wind up with a situation where people are going to have kids, and there is going to be massive resistance to re-organizing society based around one working parent instead of two. For one it means a lot of workers leave the market, for another it means prices on everything are going to have to drop (and when is the last time you've seen that happen?, some would argue it's an economical impossibility), and it probably means laws preventing both parents from working as well in order to ensure the structure is maintained, and one thing people hate is being told they can't do something and will be forced not to by the goverment.

In the end, the problem is that we're looking at scapegoats, to avoid addressing the big issues. It's like that with everything. One of the weaknesses to a goverment with elected leaders is of course that we wind up with weak leaders who can't just out and make the hard desicians. There are many advantages to the way we do things, and we feel those pros outweigh the cons. If we didn't have leaders who had to constantly worry about societal approval and winning the next election we'd have all kinds of abuses that we don't see now, but at the same time the big issues would be less so, because the goverment could just drop the hammer and say "okay, this is how thing sare going to be" and look at the big picture, instead of immediate backlash.... for those who have taken politics this might sound familiar. As much as we might love our system here in the US (and other countries might love theirs) the bottom line is that the perfect system of running a goverment has yet to be invented, and when you look at how big issues are handled that becomes readily apparent.

Blame Jersey Shore for the marked rise in douchebaggery!

OT: The people that go crazy about the government "stepping in" can just shut the hell up right now. They're the same people that demand government censorship of so many different mediums "for the children" yet when the government actually has something worthwhile to say -- something along the lines of "stop filling junior up with fat and shove a stock of celery down his throat already!" -- then it's government intervention and totally a loud problem. I'd rather have flailing tits on TV than ten year olds with diabetes, but, hey, I'm not thinking about the children.

By that token couldn't we also say we should blame parents for kids smoking as opposed to cuddly cartoon mascots? You said yourself, where do we draw the line? You can't present the "Where do we draw the line argument if you yourself have decided to draw a line.

Also as a smoker I must admit I don't like you saying that if I die of lung cancer it's just natural selection at work, because hey I'm stupid. Do I have to actually list all the great people who smoke or have smoked? It's one small choice in a lifetime, one that will deteriorate my health and probably lead to me dying young, but still just one choice that does not reflect the entirety of mine or anyone else's character. You're constantly trying to tell people to be less judgmental yet you actually just said "Hey if a whole chunk of the world's population died off that'd be ok because they're stupid."

Note. I don't actually disagree, this weird movement against the fast food industry pisses me off. People have the right to shape their own lives and the responsibility is on parents to make good choices. I just think you could have argued this better. PVP said it best "Parenting isn't a sometimes job." Taking away the rights of marketers to market and consumers to decide how they want to live their own lives is ridiculous. We have our own judgement. Democracy and liberty have to go hand in hand or else you're saying "You have good enough judgement to decide who runs the country but not how you can live your own life.

The Grim Ace:
Blame Jersey Shore for the marked rise in douchebaggery!

OT: The people that go crazy about the government "stepping in" can just shut the hell up right now. They're the same people that demand government censorship of so many different mediums "for the children" yet when the government actually has something worthwhile to say -- something along the lines of "stop filling junior up with fat and shove a stock of celery down his throat already!" -- then it's government intervention and totally a loud problem. I'd rather have flailing tits on TV than ten year olds with diabetes, but, hey, I'm not thinking about the children.

Yeah I think I can speak for all libertarians when I say "Give me big macs and tits." So seeing as I complain when the government steps in in regards to the market or how people live their lives in any aspect do I still have to shut the hell up?

Thoroughly enjoyed this episode until you bought up the pirates of the carribean and fast and furious jokes up. Keep your video series seperate, I come here for something other than whining and bitching about films you don't like.

Anyway, I support the Darwinian theory of killing off the thickies like nobody's business.
If you nearly kill yourself by taping fireworks to your arms, why should you survive to reproduce?
I have actually come up with a plan to integrate life-saving surgery used on idiotic injuries with being neutered, but the government isn't getting into it.

Anchupom:
Thoroughly enjoyed this episode until you bought up the pirates of the carribean and fast and furious jokes up. Keep your video series seperate, I come here for something other than whining and bitching about films you don't like.

Anyway, I support the Darwinian theory of killing off the thickies like nobody's business.
If you nearly kill yourself by taping fireworks to your arms, why should you survive to reproduce?
I have actually come up with a plan to integrate life-saving surgery used on idiotic injuries with being neutered, but the government isn't getting into it.

Just tell them insurance won't cover it and it'll be heavily taxed. They love that word.

MovieBob:

We have met the enemy, and he is a clown.

Alright, just a few things that may not have gotten explained in 5 minutes. First, corn is subsidized in the US. That's why we have a surplus. It's also a pretty stupid thing to turn food into a biofuel (chemically speaking, less bang for our bucks. PERIOD) but that's a rant for another day.

Second, sugar in America. Look into the sugar tariff and how that increases every year. Look into how fructose actually helps to create cancer cells. Point is, all of this is actually caused by government regulations that assist in some industries, not others.

I don't think Mickie D's is to be blamed for a parent's or child's waistline. But we should have access to better alternatives, and the laws prevent that to a certain extent.

I'll be the first to advocate that government should get out of fields of interest and let the market regulate itself, taxing only a certain percentage on goods. I bet the market regulations would actually fix themselves.

Evil Alpaca:

My one complaint about the episode is the mention of natural selection. It really bugs me when people talk about such social theories in the context of Darwinism. Darwin's Theory of evolution does not state that people, animals, or any other organisms are progressing to some sort of super being or ultimate stage of evolution. Its mainly about a species reacting to its environment

Totally agree, made a similar comment. Darwinism is a scientific theory (well practically fact), it shouldn't be applied to morality, philosophy or politics. That kind of thinking leads to fascist ideas like eugenics and ethnic cleansing.

Spot1990:

Anchupom:
Thoroughly enjoyed this episode until you bought up the pirates of the carribean and fast and furious jokes up. Keep your video series seperate, I come here for something other than whining and bitching about films you don't like.

Anyway, I support the Darwinian theory of killing off the thickies like nobody's business.
If you nearly kill yourself by taping fireworks to your arms, why should you survive to reproduce?
I have actually come up with a plan to integrate life-saving surgery used on idiotic injuries with being neutered, but the government isn't getting into it.

Just tell them insurance won't cover it and it'll be heavily taxed. They love that word.

Unfortunately, being in Britain, the government are paying for all the healthcare done so insurance and tax don't hold any weight. Can't they see that they'll be saving money in the future?! D:

Huh, this ties in perfectly as I've just finished the evolution unit in my biology class. Time to replace that old textbook definition with the new one you gave us Bob!

Captcha: texturf NEED?

Ummmmm no?

Just a point, nature is very bad at natural selection. That's why it takes millions of years. On the other hand, if it wasn't bad, the reason we wouldn't be flying is cos some rock fell on the poor bugger who got wins and the system wasn't broad enough to cope with that.

:D

Also I'm a douche for taking a j/k seriously

Well, we could lock up Johnny for glorifying piracy in general. Especially since Chinese pirates took 95% of Microsoft's cash in that part of the world.

Ronald has been more into playing outside than anything recently. Well, for the commercials that he's in. The other McDonald's Happy Meal commercials are really creeping me out.

I agree completely. Movie Bob is made of win. Win and constructive criticism.
I know Fox news pedals alot of this kind of pish, thankfully they don't broadcast in the UK but we have our own news outlets for parents whose first reaction to discovering an issue with their spawn is to (mostly out of embarrassment I suspect) blame it on something else rather than man up and deal with it.
The Sun and the Daily (F)Mail are pretty good entertainment for that kind of thing. That and Jeremy Kyle.

Honestly though, there are few things more likely to cause attempted suicide than actually watching a whole episode of Jeremy Kyle.

I wish these people would get their shit together and take responsibility for themselves, their actions and their kids. I know the vast majority of parents are great (or atleast good) but these few who don't accept their responsibilities are letting the side down.

another good show, but please go easy on mr. johnny.

Not really going to throw my entire hat into the ring either behind OR against Bob here, but I do have to say this: Making the point that evolution should run its course is silly. Evolution is a very real force that has a great amount of power. It is also an ASSHOLE. "Fittest" often times doesn't mean better. It often means the being that fucks over the entire species, dooming it to a spiral of wither and decay that's actually self destructive, but MORE destructive to the poor shmucks who have the nerve to try to make things better gets to screw the most. In evolution, the guy discovering a unified field theory that will lead to the ultimate ascension of his species gets killed by the bigger guy who thinks that he might as well get this genius out of the way now before he steals away all the ladies. The saving grace is intelligence. If we, as a culture, direct our actions in a way that is, "Unnatural" or, "Interrupts the course of nature", we can make the world a better place by leaps and bounds, and this will involve spitting in mother natures eye. Or maybe it doesn't: Maybe the intelligence to find out ways to supersede natural selection and replace it with something more efficient are really just a particularly innovative evolutionary leap. One way or another, we don't need to worry about going outside the bounds of nature: Either it is physically impossible for us, no matter what we do, or out of bounds is exactly where we should be. If getting rid of the clown saves lives and health, hell, get rid of the clown. Ill consider all the spooky, totalitarian dominos that could fall afterwards as well, but the important thing is that I consider it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here