Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Short video about....humanity

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DrJay
    replied
    Originally posted by Daisy
    Originally posted by Brian
    I think the guy in the suit was more representative of the stereotype of the societal subgroup who "shouldn't" have time to stop because they are so busy moving on to their next appointment.
    And he almost did not stop. Did he not pass and then return?

    Just out of interest what does his original sign say?
    "Have compassion. I am blind."

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by Brian
    I think the guy in the suit was more representative of the stereotype of the societal subgroup who "shouldn't" have time to stop because they are so busy moving on to their next appointment.
    And he almost did not stop. Did he not pass and then return?

    Just out of interest what does his original sign say?

    Leave a comment:


  • proofs in the pudd'in
    replied
    Originally posted by Brian
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    [

    Speaking of stereotypes...

    Good way to sully a nice thread.
    You right I will delete that if you want? Of course it was with a


    Thanks.

    Don't mean to play thought police. Just thought it didn't fit right here. Hope I wasn't out of line myself.[/quote]

    No your right I took it in a different direction.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian
    replied
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    [

    Speaking of stereotypes...

    Good way to sully a nice thread.
    You right I will delete that if you want? Of course it was with a [/quote]



    Thanks.

    Don't mean to play thought police. Just thought it didn't fit right here. Hope I wasn't out of line myself.

    Leave a comment:


  • proofs in the pudd'in
    replied
    [quote=tandfman]
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    Originally posted by tandfman
    Originally posted by "proofs in the pudd'in":1jipkrqu
    Like the founders of America they believed that a free society would not work if there was alack of moral restraint - not goverment restraint.
    Oh, really? I must have missed that. :roll:
    John Adams:

    "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
    I wasn't referring to the Founding Fathers. I was referring to "they." I assumed that the antecedent was the makers of the film. I thought it was a stretch to infer that belief from the film.[/quote:1jipkrqu]

    Well thanks for the clarification - I should have been more clear - sorry.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman
    I think that's what you were supposed to think. One of the points of the thing, I think, is that people aren't always what they appear to be. Not all guys in suits are heartless and greedy, even if they are capitalists, which he might have been. (From his appearance, one also might have guessed that he was a contract assassin.)

    One thing a lot of people mistake is not realizing that both conservatives and liberals endorse the concept of charity. As in most things, it is the extreme fringes of both groups who take it to a different place.

    But take heart: I'm sure Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave. :]


    Also, I think the guy in the suit was more representative of the stereotype of the societal subgroup who "shouldn't" have time to stop because they are so busy moving on to their next appointment. A stark contrast to the previous people in the flick who obviously weren't in much of a hurry to get anywhere or do anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    [quote=proofs in the pudd'in]
    Originally posted by tandfman
    Originally posted by "proofs in the pudd'in":3p99jpam
    Like the founders of America they believed that a free society would not work if there was alack of moral restraint - not goverment restraint.
    Oh, really? I must have missed that. :roll:
    John Adams:

    "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798[/quote:3p99jpam]
    I wasn't referring to the Founding Fathers. I was referring to "they." I assumed that the antecedent was the makers of the film. I thought it was a stretch to infer that belief from the film.

    Leave a comment:


  • proofs in the pudd'in
    replied
    Originally posted by Brian
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    Or how about Ben Frank:

    “ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787

    All those liberals on CNN, MSNBC, ect. would be sh*** their pants if someone said that today. :lol:


    Speaking of stereotypes...

    Good way to sully a nice thread.
    You right I will delete that if you want? Of course it was with a

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian
    replied
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    Or how about Ben Frank:

    “ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787

    All those liberals on CNN, MSNBC, ect. would be sh*** their pants if someone said that today. :lol:


    Speaking of stereotypes...

    Good way to sully a nice thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • proofs in the pudd'in
    replied
    Or how about Ben Frank:

    “ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787

    All those liberals on CNN, MSNBC, ect. would be sh*** their pants if someone said that today. :lol:

    Leave a comment:


  • proofs in the pudd'in
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    Like the founders of America they believed that a free society would not work if there was alack of moral restraint - not goverment restraint.
    Oh, really? I must have missed that. :roll:
    John Adams:

    "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

    Leave a comment:


  • proofs in the pudd'in
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman
    The other possible message there is that charity is more likely to be motivated by guilt than by pity.
    That is true in alot of cases but I don't think the sign was meant to generate guilt. We could say that it focused on the peoples privelage of sight in contrast to his blindness - something we take for granted unless pointed out to us. That is not neccessarily guilt but the reality that should not be taken for granted. Guilt would seem to put more upon the givers than is warranted - somthing to with fault not pity which would appeal to his lack of said privelage. I just want to know what was in the brief case?

    Money, Gun, ???

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Like teaching a man to fish.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    Did you notice that he did not give the man any money
    That's exactly what I thought when it ended. It's not always spending/giving money. Sometimes it's just spending the time to help someone else. Tres cool!

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    Like the founders of America they believed that a free society would not work if there was alack of moral restraint - not goverment restraint.
    Oh, really? I must have missed that. :roll:

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X