Nolte: Movies Are About to Suck Like ‘Captain Marvel’ for a Very Long Time

[luthervol]

I genuinely don't understand your convulsions here, luther.

I am doing no such thing. I am merely saying that to reject something based merely on its source AND REFUSE TO DISCUSS THE FACTS OF THE PROPOSITION is a logical fallacy.

I've never once said that anyone must make any assumption at all, or stop with their original assumptions. I've proposed just the opposite. A debate of any claims.

You actually agreed with me.

I'm not sure if you've hit your head, skipped a meal, missed a dose of meds, or accidentally taken an extra dose of meds, but you're basically having seizures right now.

Yea, I don't really don't know either.
I think it started when one poster scoffed at something from Breitbart (which I think is perfectly logical and justifiable) and other posters said he was wrong for doing this.

Beyond that, the merits of what was in the Breitart article can be debated, but the onus should be on the original poster for having used such an unreliable source to begin with. He should back it up with further sources or expect it to be rejected.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yea, I don't really don't know either.
I think it started when one poster scoffed at something from Breitbart (which I think is perfectly logical and justifiable) and other posters said he was wrong for doing this.

Beyond that, the merits of what was in the Breitart article can be debated, but the onus should be on the original poster for having used such an unreliable source to begin with. He should back it up with further sources or expect it to be rejected.

It began when the ad hominem fallacy was called critical thinking. I corrected with the very definition of the ad hominem fallacy, and you said that I was incorrect. Since your sugar appears to be low, I'll make another post in a second with those quotes in it.

Make it fairly easy to follow.

 

[luthervol]

It began when the ad hominem fallacy was called critical thinking. I corrected with the very definition of the ad hominem fallacy, and you said that I was incorrect. Since your sugar appears to be low, I'll make another post in a second with those quotes in it.

Make it fairly easy to follow.

Please don't multi-quote post.

 

[Orange_Crush]

They never cease to be a fallacy as long as they are an argument about the messenger and not the facts of the message. Go dust off your old textbooks and make an argument about the facts in question.

Not true.
If something is known to be false 90% of the time and it is then stated that there is a 90% chance that the next piece of information is false, there is absolutely no fallacy.

Geez, dude...

Just slink away and let this one get buried in history. You really stepped on your junk pretty hard. I hope the bruising heals up soon.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Please don't multi-quote post.

Deal with it. As a matter of fact...

 

[Orange_Crush]

They never cease to be a fallacy as long as they are an argument about the messenger and not the facts of the message. Go dust off your old textbooks and make an argument about the facts in question.

Not true.
If something is known to be false 90% of the time and it is then stated that there is a 90% chance that the next piece of information is false, there is absolutely no fallacy.

lol

Keep digging. The ad hominem is a fallacy as long as it deals with the messenger in absence of dealing with the message. Your attempts at statistical analysis don't change that, Einstein.

In honor of the Fourth of July and our great country that the left loves just as much as the right...........

You are correct!!! With the caveat of "in absence of dealing with the message."
However.
The "lol.....look at your source, there is a 90% chance it is BS." is perfectly appropriate.
There would be a greater onus on the original poster to prove the message true than on the poster questioning the validity to prove it false.

With no additional data provided by either side, the logical conclusion would be that the message is probably false.

Geez, dude.

You actually agreed and then went into convulsions.

 

[luthervol]

Geez, dude.

You actually agreed and then went into convulsions.

Yeah.
My point was only meant to be that not accepting an unreliable source is actually logical. Which is what he appeared to be doing.
The rest sort of turned into word salad.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yeah.
My point was only meant to be that not accepting an unreliable source is actually logical. Which is what he appeared to be doing.
The rest sort of turned into word salad.

It's not logical to rest your debate on distrust of a source. That's the point, and that's what he was doing.

Eat a snickers and get your sugar back up.

 

[Roustabout]

And where exactly did I dismiss the piece? Oh yeah, that's right, I didn't.
Apology accepted.

Sorry. It was KC. You puffed in plenty of drivel. Sorry you suck.

 

[luthervol]

It's not logical to rest your debate on distrust of a source. That's the point, and that's what he was doing.

Eat a snickers and get your sugar back up.

It seemed to me that KC was only scoffing at the relevance of an opinion piece in Breitart. He wasn't debating anything.
But agreed: It's not logical to rest your debate on distrust of a source.
It's even less logical to rest your debate on trust in an untrustworthy source.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It seemed to me that KC was only scoffing at the relevance of an opinion piece in Breitart. He wasn't debating anything.
But agreed: It's not logical to rest your debate on distrust of a source.
It's even less logical to rest your debate on trust in an untrustworthy source.

Seriously. WTH is wrong with you?

No one has rested any argument on an untrustworthy source. The entire post in question relayed an argument, and gave a link for reference. KC hand-waved the entire post and its argument by attacking the link.

He compounded the problem and furthered the discussion by claiming that ad hominems are foundational to critical thinking skills.

The original post in no way just posted a link and said it was true because of where the link led.

Again... WTH is wrong with you?

 

[Franklin Pierce]

It seemed to me that KC was only scoffing at the relevance of an opinion piece in Breitart. He wasn't debating anything.
But agreed: It's not logical to rest your debate on distrust of a source.
It's even less logical to rest your debate on trust in an untrustworthy source.

DUDE, we get it from a Multitude of your posts that you Despise BREITBART.

Now, would you open your far left Heart, and tell friend and foe alike, five Movies that you really liked that were released in the past five years.

 

[luthervol]

Seriously. WTH is wrong with you?

No one has rested any argument on an untrustworthy source. The entire post in question relayed an argument, and gave a link for reference. KC hand-waved the entire post and its argument by attacking the link.

He compounded the problem and furthered the discussion by claiming that ad hominems are foundational to critical thinking skills.

The original post in no way just posted a link and said it was true because of where the link led.

Again... WTH is wrong with you?

wut?
The post was nothing more than copy/paste from an opinion piece carried by Breitbart. The OP added nothing.
The link was the post.
Did you think the OP actually said those things instead of just copy/paste?

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

DUDE, we get it from a Multitude of your posts that you Despise BREITBART.

Now, would you open your far left Heart, and tell friend and foe alike, five Movies that you really liked that were released in the past five years.

Sharknado 1-5

 

[Franklin Pierce]

wut?
The post was nothing more than copy/paste from an opinion piece carried by Breitbart. The OP added nothing.
The link was the post.
Did you think the OP actually said those things instead of just copy/paste?

10 Worst Movies of 2018


Dead-on-arrival sequels, “dark” superhero tales gone wrong, the dumbest mobster movie ever made — welcome to the bottom of 2018’s cinematic barrel


So many bad movies, so little time to tell you how bad. But as Hollywood continues to reboot and recycle anything that made a buck and run from originality like a form of box-office plague, the multiplex in 2018 proved more crowded than ever with creative cowardice enhanced by the participation of shameless hacks. Have you felt the brain-numbing déjà vu of Mama Mia: Here We Go Again, Insidious: The Last Key, Pacific Rim: Uprising, Johnny English Strikes Again, Super Troopers 2, The Cloverfield Paradox, Sherlock Gnomes and The Nutcracker and the Four Realms? We have. We’ve watched The Rock basically play the same role twice in Skyscraper and Rampage. We’ve suffered through the Bruce Willis remake of Charles Bronson’s Death Wish, the Anna Faris redo of Goldie Hawn’s Overboard and Benedict Cumberbatch’s one-upping Jim Carrey’s bah-humbuggery in an animated update of The Grinch.

10 Worst Movies of 2018

 

[Orange_Crush]

wut?
The post was nothing more than copy/paste from an opinion piece carried by Breitbart. The OP added nothing.
The link was the post.
Did you think the OP actually said those things instead of just copy/paste?

Yah. That's my point. The OP gave talking points and a link for reference.

(A) It wasn't just a reference that said, "Breitbart is the bomb and trustworthy!"
(B) The poster in question ignored every sentence of the post and wrote it off due to the link at the bottom.

So, there was an argument to be discussed. It was responded to with an ad hominem fallacy. When pointed out, the offender claimed that the ad hominem was valid critical thinking.

You jumped in, had a few twitches, then agreed with me, then went into full convulsions. It's almost like you're some sort of "logical epileptic" and valid arguments are strobe lights that set you off.

 

[luthervol]

DUDE, we get it from a Multitude of your posts that you Despise BREITBART.

Now, would you open your far left Heart, and tell friend and foe alike, five Movies that you really liked that were released in the past five years.

Knives Out came to mind immediately.
The Gentlemen was great.
I enjoyed both Jumanji movies.
I actually liked the Marvel movies.
The Two Popes

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

I’m probably as much of a cinephile as the next guy, but I’ll never understand people who watch movies expecting to be enlightened. Most are big budget popcorn flicks that are churned out to make money, and they do. To expect more than that is setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

[luthervol]

Yah. That's my point. The OP gave talking points and a link for reference.

(A) It wasn't just a reference that said, "Breitbart is the bomb and trustworthy!"
(B) The poster in question ignored every sentence of the post and wrote it off due to the link at the bottom.

So, there was an argument to be discussed. It was responded to with an ad hominem fallacy. When pointed out, the offender claimed that the ad hominem was valid critical thinking.

You jumped in, had a few twitches, then agreed with me, then went into full convulsions. It's almost like you're some sort of "logical epileptic" and valid arguments are strobe lights that set you off.

It was an opinion piece. There were no "facts" to be debated.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It was an opinion piece. There were no "facts" to be debated.

That would have been a decent start of a response, eh? I'd recommend not following it up with a claim that ad hominems are foundational to critical thinking. And, me personally, if I were going to respond, I'd probably have given some commentary on the opinions.

 

[luthervol]

That would have been a decent start of a response, eh? I'd recommend not following it up with a claim that ad hominems are foundational to critical thinking. And, me personally, if I were going to respond, I'd probably have given some commentary on the opinions.

Fair enough.

 

[BreatheUT]

I thought it was all about money. Wont they produce whatever makes them money?
Maybe Fox News can branch off into movie production.
Tucker Carlson could be a secret agent fighting off the evil Dr. Soros and his antifa and BLM minions trying to take over the world.
They have a built in audience who would storm the theaters nightly.

Doesn't matter if they don't storm storefronts, banks, residences, statues, free speech speakers with different views among other things.

 

[luthervol]

Doesn't matter if they don't storm storefronts, banks, residences, statues, free speech speakers with different views among other things.

What does that have to do with my point?
If it's all about money and the free market, movies will be made that people want to see.

 

[BreatheUT]

To answer your question I don't think it is all about money. Hollywood makes terrible movies all the time to prove a point. It's about power and controlling the message of society imo in certain cases. Again just my opinion.

 

[Wireless1]

I’m probably as much of a cinephile as the next guy, but I’ll never understand people who watch movies expecting to be enlightened. Most are big budget popcorn flicks that are churned out to make money, and they do. To expect more than that is setting yourself up for disappointment.

It’ll be interesting watching the industry transform. The major houses have lost many of their golden gooses (Weinstein) and appear to be moving toward “meaningful” films which won’t bring in the huge paydays. The alternate (Netflix, Porn, Christian, horror) groups will have a real chance to “stray” into the mainstream and capture a significant market share, assuming there is even a market to share if the streaming services choose to lock out the competition. There are billions up for grab.