Comic Genesis Forums

maximuscoolman wrote:

DetailBear wrote:

maximuscoolman wrote:I thought Will was the Navigator.

Just to clarify:
Commander Will(iam) Ryker - First Officer, played by Johnathon Frakes, not
Ensign Wesley Crusher - (often) Helm, played by Wil Wheaton.

I was talking about Don Karnage, not Star Trek. A quick google search indicates that Don Karnage is about furry pirates.

At this point, Don Karnage is pretty much the patron god of furry pirates.

"Shoot them! Alot!"
"Do you want your captain to get burnt like the french toast?"
"Hang on just a minuet. I am the ONLY ONE who says 'one more time'."
"I am a pirate. I don't *do* decency."
"I look MARVELOUS!"

That, and his toe-curlingly hot accent is perpetually captivating.

maximuscoolman wrote:I was talking about Don Karnage, not Star Trek. A quick google search indicates that Don Karnage is about furry pirates.

Sorry.

Zavion wrote:Did anyone actually bother to view the movie?

Couldn't access the site the first day. Today I could and watched. When I saw it was propaganda, I almost stopped it, but watched it to the end for the sake of commenting on it.

The arguments are plausible to a point. Since I don't believe that their definition of property is complete, I have some problems with the parts of their argument that rely on it.

Also, they left out a few things:

- the right to reasonable self-defence from the aggression of others can be transferred to the government;
- the making of choices by an individual can result in consequences for others;
- consent to be governed includes the agreement to provide the government with the physical, human, intellectual and financial resources to carry out the government;
- even those without the physical, intellectual or financial abilty to request help in fending off the agression of others deserve the help.

But then, it was only a short flash animation, not a textbook.

So I voted "I did not like it."

I want to thank Detail Bear.
Liking the movie and agreeing with it isn't the same. You have some good points to add. I think it has a fairly good message open away from biases (that warrent an individual gain). It could be easily applied to many people regardeless of personal religeon/gender/age/lifestyle ect. It is propaganda, but everything that may possibly try to influence you at all is propaganda. I only dislike propaganda when it's clearly trying to mislead someone for the benifit or gain of a specific sect of people, and this really doesn't seem like it would benifit one person or group more than say, all people.
I don't even agree with all of it.
I just thought it was an interesting thing to think about, like maybe start a conversation on or something, but the thread kinda took a side track as soon as it possibly could, which is why I put the poll up. I don't plan on making any new topics for a while and I want to see how the poll turns out anyways. I don't want to really waste anyone's time, and if this offended anyone or something, I'm sorry. If it was that bad, please lock the thread or delete it, I won't mind.

There wasn't an "I can't watch the movie" option, so I picked the last one...


--Randy
(who is known for quite long political rants, mostly centering around how most of the planet consists of greedly, selfish, stupid people)

Okay, I finally watched it and...

Eh, it's okay. Especially if you're a liberatarian.

Those of you who can't see it, it is a sequence of stick-figure drawings, depicting a Liberatarian view of the origin of human suffering at the hands of other humans who do not respect Self Ownership.

It borrows from a lot of democratic thinkers around the time of our nation's founding and a bit from plato to say:

Self-Ownership is taken as axiomatic. (Fair enough; Jefferson took it so.)

Self-ownership implies the right to life, freedom and property. (The French came up with that.)

The rights to life, freedom and property imply the rights to self-defense, self-empowerment, and commerce. (Common American Doctrines.)

That these rights are fundamental implies that these rights should not be taken from others, whether directly or through a proxy (such as government).

Human suffering, it is argued (although not propped up), is caused by people seeking to take away the rights of others, again, whether alone or through proxy.


There could have been a segment on "Desire to take rights" stemming from Hate, (Murder and Slavery) and Greed (Slavery and Theft), which would have argued (although still not completely convincingly) that human suffering is in fact caused by people seeking to take away the rights of others.

This animation is good in that it lays out a fair bit of liberatarian and democratic thought in clear, simple language that one who had not thought of such things before could understand. It allows people who have not studied the history of democracy and liberty to "get" those philosophical tennants in one tidy package, although I honestly think this would be far better as a simple text file or comic. The repetative music is sufficiently so to actually become a noticable annoyance.

The set of arguments in this flash would make a good basis for a constitution which would serve a government for a few centuries, until at last Hate and Greed grew great enough in its people to tear it down.

Which of course, doesn't sound familiar at ALL.

i just found it way too long.... and ya, that music gets really old really fast.

I honestly think this would be far better as a simple text file or comic.

Agreed. It took way to long to make it's point, and I found it quite patronising for that. I much prefered Allan's summary. Sort of reminds me of when teachers would say "treat others how you would expect to be treated yourself."

Zavion wrote this from Cyril's dorm in Hoboken: "I didn't agree with it (the movie) totally myself either. I do believe that most of human suffering is indeed caused by other humans, and that the first suffering we can physically end is that caused by humans. 'Do onto others as you'd have them do to you' is not often practiced by many people, and honestly, by probably no one 100% of the time, even if most people would agree that it's a good ethical idea. Too many people are concerned with enforcing their personal opinions on others (ect. Lifestyle, religion, marital status ect.) even when differing options are non-outside and non-threatening (ie having a differing lifestyle shouldn't threaten other people, any more than having a different taste in soda ect.)."

*Scratches off "I like the new conversation more" answer and replaces it with "I like the conversation in the middle more".

^,^;

Someone could post a conversation on Star Trek and I'd be glad to join in. My 'mood' in a conversation usually is determined by the subject matter, so it was kinda disconcerting to me the giant shift.

Righto.

I'm an Ensign too now. ^,^ Any thoughts on what kind of death I shall have?

Random transporter malfunction, it's always the best.

maximuscoolman wrote:Random transporter malfunction, it's always the best.

"I don't know what you sent over...but it didn't live very long, whatever it was."

- Jarylan "Worst death ever. OR! I'm not cleaning that up..." Vulpine

"Then it exploded.."

"Blasted Transporter buffers aren't made like they used to be!"

If this could be my future, I think I'll stick to shuttles, thanks.

But don't go into a shuttle if you have to. If there is too much interference so be transported to the surface, there's a good chance you'll end up stranded and get killed by the natives.
We should make a "how to survive being a sci-fi extra" guide .

Rule 1: Wear blue. The medics never get killed.

Rule 2 - Don't touch anything that looks odd unless you're with someone important. In which case, let them touch it.