Forum Overview :: Peter Molyneux's The Movies :: Re: what if tom chick and icycalm had a baby and named it bink?

[quote name="bink"][quote name="Zsenitan"]YM "sadism", hth. But as far as straight up violence goes, I assure you I am the biggest fan of it ever. I think violence is very purifying.[/quote] What a delightfully fascist viewpoint! I think violence is abhorrent and should only be used when absolutely necessary. I also think you shouldn't cheer when you engage in it. [quote]I'm about to (Wittgenstein) this argument. Before we get to footnote territory, all I want to say is that there are things way worse than just hurting people a lot. Despite what QT3 thinks, there are worse things that can happen to people than being beaten to death. Some of them even happened in the movie, like during the opening farm scene that you were asleep for[/quote] Shooting someone to death is worse than beating them to death? I'd say Shoshanna's family died just as quickly. I think what you mean to say is that "Landa's crime was worse because he killed civilians" which I have already agreed with. [quote]Inglourious Basterds is a paean to the old, glorious, mythologically American way of doing business.[/quote] Yes, it is a myth which you suck down greedily. [quote]What resemblance can this possibly bear to waterboarding a man suspected of eeeeeevil but who may not have done anything at all? A guy yanked from the streets of his hometown, transported thousands of miles away, and tormented for reasons he may never understand by people who are the big backers of "human rights" in his neighborhood! The irony, and your miscalculation, are both sickening.[/quote] And what, pray tell, keeps you from admitting that many German soldiers were just as duped into their actions as those Iraqis? What keeps you from admitting that most Germans were as ignorant of the camps as the American soldiers were of Abu Ghraib? I think the analogy is more relevant than you think. Compared to Abu Ghraib yes the beating is relatively tame. The Abu Ghraib comment was meant to illustrate that it's okay for America to do it because it was just a "few bad apples." It's not okay when America's Enemy does it because they're all unremittingly Evil. What keeps you from conceding this extremely minor, obvious point? [quote]Soldiers are in the business of war. Like I said before, it is literally too stupid to be believed that you think bodies of troops in a war situation should be quizzing each other on their motives before opening fire.[/quote] Good old Zseni, master of the strawman. I said nothing about quizzes. That was your invention. What I actually said was that any rational person would realize that most of his enemies are fighting to protect their homeland, not because they are unrepentant Jew-killers, and wouldn't conflate the two into the God-given Right to brutalize them however they see fit. [quote]Further, where is your rationale for the Germans killing all those people THEY were fighting against? Why it is so uncool when Americans ice the shit out of Nazis, but Nazis don't get questioned at all for shit like "bombing the fuck out of England" or "taking over Paris" or, you know, "killing six million Jews"? I just can't understand if you're stupid, ignorant, or both.[/quote] Sigh. Keep misrepresenting the argument if you like. I DON'T THINK SOLDIERS FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST AN ENEMY IS BAD. The idea that beating a captured, submissive prisoner to death with a baseball bat is "relatively tame" is your problem. I view cruelty as cruelty, especially when you yuk it up afterwards. I'm as black-and-white on this as you are about Germans-bad-Americans-good.[/quote]