Durakken

Angelina Jolie is obviously sexist because...well look at her. How could she not be sexist against women? Would a woman who isn't sexist against women ever look like that? You think Rossane Barr or Rosie O'Donnel would ever be caught looking like that? Hell no, they aren't sexist against women...just look at them.


Disclaimer: The views presented in the above paragraphs are not those of the reader nor the writer and should be viewed as a mockery of all arguments thus far presented on both sides.

Disclaimer 2: What, are you dense? Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think I am? I'm the God damn Batman.

Catwoman is considered one of the sexiest characters in all of comics... She has worn 9 costumes, 1 which shows her legs and 1 that shows her back. all other costumes of hers are complete coverings.

What does this matter? Exactly... She wears exactly the type of thing the male characters do and is considered the sexiest. What does it matter that some do and some don't show skin when it is clearly the case that it doesn't matter.


Any argument for the female characters being of male fantasy falls flat when one looks at porn as a read on what is male and female fantasy... As one comedian, that I can't remember their name, put it, porn for Male ranges between so many likes and dislikes that the idea of what is a beautiful woman is really an up for grabs question with women ranging from obese to just skin and bones, from old and haggard to young and supple, from breasts so big that they defy physics to breasts so small they may as well not be considered so... When compared to porn for Females, only one image is dominant... Given this image most males can do nothing but despair as there is no hope of ever meeting it...unlike for males for which one could argue that no matter the size or shape of a woman there is a man that will find you attractive...

So again, the male fantasy thing, as far as the depiction of women is BS, and the depiction of men... that's circular. Women pretty much only find that image of a man attractive therefor men wish to be that image subconsciously there for the image is a projection for the male to want to be like and the female to like to look at.

Of course most of the image thing gets thrown out because most women base their attraction not on appearance, but on intelligence and successfulness, but then if we look at that there is really only one setting and not multitudes of variation there. Sure success can be measured differently and Bruce Wayne is considered more of catch than Clark Kent simply because of the money aspect, but lets be frank, the only reason Clark loses to Bruce in this situation is because Clark isn't associated with having immense amount of power...either through money or influence... even though he does. And really I've never seen Clark be strapped for cash.

Of course one could argue that not all males fit this bill...look at Blue Beetle or Kyle Rayner or any plethora of teen characters...and that exactly it, they're teen characters and noone reading comics is ever going to sympathize with the jock or super successful from a young age. That is why Venom didn't get his own specials and such until after they left school.

Can you think of male characters that are not successful in their "traditional" careers and are top billing and not teens? by traditional i mean... Peter Parker recently was a teacher...but he is more known to be a photographer who is like the top freelancer or some such.

No. Anyone who read what I said and wasn't trying to pick a fight would know that I disagree with the entirety of copyright law and that there are many things wrong with it that lead to ridiculous law suits. You must forgive me for expecting people to read and understand based on the full context of what I wrote and not pick at little things that are not relevant to the topic.

Again, "the way you thought," is a completely stupid thing to say. The only thing I got wrong is the length of time a copyright is in effect. What I thought and still think is correct. I also eluded to there being other things that go into effect which was the whole point of bringing up the Superman thing in the first place.

Not caring to look up facts every time something comes up, which you seem to think everyone, or at least I, should do every time they, or I, talk about something, to me seems more practical and more rational. Seriously, it's annoying that people think that just because you have 24/7 access to search programs that everyone wants to be loaded down with facts. I find it the height of social idiocy to do such a thing and shows a complete lack of interest in talking about or to a person and instead, trying to impress upon someone how much better you are at looking up facts, rather than using your brain to, you know, actually discuss topics at hand with the people in front of you or on forums.

The Superman lawsuit IS ridiculous.

Your usage of the word "understanding" is wrong.

I was wrong about what the current time period before a copyright goes to public domain is, which it is clear I'm not certain of. I also mention before you replied (though it is posted right after) that the law has changed and I don't care to keep tabs on it with how much it changes around copyright.

That's nice. Research wasn't necessary.

Actually, this is one of those areas that you and whoever read it as this is 100% factual need to learn english.

Notice the bolded? Yeah... See I don't know what it is exactly any more because the law changes every now and then and I really don't care as other copyright laws, pretty much say, Bigger entity (company or individual) wins, regardless of any other law out there.

I know there is a law like that. I don't know how it is stated exactly, or the time periods involved.

I'm not saying it isn't a projection of Male Fantasies... I'm saying that the males are also a projection of Female Fantasies and placing anything on one side or the other is nonsense. We all want to be attractive and look at attractive people and therefor the entire thing is a fantasy for everyone, not just one gender... and obviously it is a Western Civilization Fantasy because different culture has different things they find attractive. If you looked at say, some african tribe where they fine a long neck to be sexy, every male and female, villain and hero would all have long necks (though i think the long neck thing is female only, but if it were male too they'd have it too)

So cells get larger by the person, eh? That's a new one... Or are we not counting cells as parts?

Since this is the only relevant post of the 3 posts I'm going to ignore the other 2...

You still haven't answered what I asked directly. I can now guess that what you mean by complex is simply "more parts."

So back to building analogy... you seem agree with me. The 1000 10x10x10 buildings would be more complex than the 100x100x100 building which is created using more structural supports than the single building that is impossible and slightly less complex than it that is simply a scaled up version of one of those 10x10x10 buildings which it is not more complex than.

Now, I'm going to predict that you disagree, largely because you don't understand what I said, because your more likely to do that than agree at this point or disagree because your just want to disagree.

I don't agree that complex means just more parts though... rather it is most likely the case that more parts = more complex, but it is not necessarily the case. A giantic building size cube of legos is not more complex than, say, perfectly recreated scale city scape made of only lego. And in this way we can see that it is not just the parts but also perhaps form...and/or function.

Also like I said before. I would not consider a 6 foot person more complex than 5 foot person, despite the 6 foot person having many more parts than the 5 foot.

My bad. I read the post, not just the topic. How terrible of me to do that and assume others would do the same.

It is said somewhere in one of the things that discuss the core that it is better than even a core of that size even, but we can't talk about it, even though we are allowed to according to what was said of the rules, but apparently not according to dif mods. Whatever.

ZephyrWind, The one where he somehow rides a bicycle at light speed. I'm pretty sure that was originally Einstein's but I've heard it from several scientists so it could be someone else's.

Schismatrix, I have not moved the goal post and again with the insults.

it's not a flawed analogy. We're trying to figure out complexity and Arcanaville brings up something as irrelevant as 1 building is less than 1% the volume of the other and trying to say that's why it is less complex and that it was impossible for a structure to exist on Earth, ignoring the fact that I already said it wasn't possible.

It's also not possible for a human to go the speed of light so Einstein's analogy is wrong obviously.

v.v

#1. Yes, the drive was over sized, but...
#2. The drive was also used it's fuel more efficiently than a drive of similar size.

#3. While it is the case that we have not seen other ships and such. We know what it does. You could hypothetical get the mass of the two ships to be exactly the same regardless of its actual weight/size and as such they could use the exact same engines to reach the same speeds.

There are however some things to do with the size of the drives and ships... It some sort of limitation that I can't quite remember, plus there is an overall limit to the size of ships enforced by the relays so the City Ship regardless of how much you could alter its mass could never use the relays.

No that is what was Galadiman is saying with his arguments.

Ironik, no. I have never been diagnosed with anything and I most certainly do not have Down Syndrome.

My arguments are all based around very specific details and understandings that some people seem to be ignoring that I pointed out long before them. Indicating that THEY have a problem with reading, and not that I have a problem with understanding. The entire last 2 pages have been me trying to figure out what you understand to be complex. The 2 statements made to this end are incredibly laughable. Arcanaville implied it was Volume and Galadiman said it was based on the number of intrinsic parts in a functioning system. Obviously, this ends the conversation with Aracanaville because the biggest thing to her is the most complex as it has the most volume. And Galadiman's statement is laughable because I view a modern car as incredibly complex, but I would say that a car, using galadiman's definition is pretty simple.

Understanding what you guys mean as complex is what I have been trying to figure out for the last few ages and this was my stated intention and yet you guys have not made even one step forward in figuring this out. Instead you are arguing that "this example is impossible" or "the process of making these materials that way is complex" and this indicates to me that you either lack the ability to understand/comprehend what is being said/asked or you are willfully not answering the simple question of what do you mean when you say complex...

This is important because if I mean something completely different with the word complex then unless we're lucky we're not going to agree no matter what. So by figuring out what you or I mean by complex we can figure out whether or not we are right about what we are saying, even if we disagree about what the words mean. You guys on the other hand seem to just want me to say your right rather than you actually BEING right and I simply refuse because I can't agree with you in any way when I don't have a clue as to what you mean and what you say is contradictory to other things you are saying.

how many times do I have to say that, legality and morality and ought and is are different things and I usually argue from the moral and ought stand point and not the legality and is stand point