New TV Season Thoughts

wagawadad wrote:

The Wire...simply the most powerful interesting show i have ever seen..period...i hope it never ends and i think it has reinvented itself this year which shows just how talented the writers of this show are..

I'm pretty sure they are only planning to do 5 seasons. Actually I think the original plan was for 3 seasons. It's nice when a show clearly has thought put into the overall plot arc beforehand.. I'm looking at you Lost.

*Legion* wrote:

No, what the writers realize is that people will always splinter off into separate, mutually exclusive groups - and eventually fight. Religion isn't the cause. Do away with religion and something else will step in to fill the "us vs. them" void.

This is under the misconception that religion is the only divisive issue in society. Getting rid of religion will be step forward, but won't make everyone instantly bliss out on peace love and lollipops, there's still other equally divisive topics that will contribute to us killing each other, such as politics and issues of gender and race. (ironically, the last two problems stem primarily from religious dogma). I view atheism not as a dodge, but as me taking control and responsibility for my own actions and behaviour. Which is the point I was trying to make earlier, aside from Richard Dawkin's appearance the show just casts atheism as a dogmatic religion of it's own- evidenced by the people of the future constantly spouting things like "Science damn you!" and "Science bless you!"

(desperately trying to avoid p&c while still elaborating my point)

ruhk wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

No, what the writers realize is that people will always splinter off into separate, mutually exclusive groups - and eventually fight. Religion isn't the cause. Do away with religion and something else will step in to fill the "us vs. them" void.

This is under the misconception that religion is the only divisive issue in society. Getting rid of religion will be step forward, but won't make everyone instantly bliss out on peace love and lollipops, there's still other equally divisive topics that will contribute to us killing each other, such as politics and issues of gender and race. (ironically, the last two problems stem primarily from religious dogma). I view atheism not as a dodge, but as me taking control and responsibility for my own actions and behaviour. Which is the point I was trying to make earlier, aside from Richard Dawkin's appearance the show just casts atheism as a dogmatic religion of it's own- evidenced by the people of the future constantly spouting things like "Science damn you!" and "Science bless you!"

(desperately trying to avoid p&c while still elaborating my point)

ruhk - You have brilliantly just repeated, in many more words, what Legion just said. Congratulations, YOU are the skimmer of the week!

I'm getting a bit irritated that South Park is turning into "Shill Park" this season.

It was kind of quaint when they did the MaryShiavo/PSP episode two years ago but having three (1 for WoW, 2 for Wii) product pushing episodes already in the season seems a bit excessive. Maybe its their version of product placement advertising but when a politically incorrect show built upon satirizing societal mores starts reducing the actual satirizing for excessive, fanboy product ravings then it's just become another infomercial.

Man, it really doesn't bother me the way they're doing it. I'm biased, because I like video games, but if they did an episode where, say, Cartman concocted a scheme to get, say, Shane Battier rookie cards from Topps, I wouldn't be bothered then either.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

ruhk - You have brilliantly just repeated, in many more words, what Legion just said. Congratulations, YOU are the skimmer of the week!
:razz:

Skimmer? Naaaah!
I Interpreted Legion's comment as saying that religion was being used as the primary divisive topic in society, and without it we would just have to find something else to bitch about.
My comment was implying that we bitch about many more things than religion and getting rid of it wouldn't stop us from bitching, but we would definately bitch less.

Anyway, otherwise it was an ok episode. It's nice that they are getting over the midlife crisis the show had last season. I'm still a bit alarmed at the high amount of product placement this season has had, though.

It completely baffles me that Jericho is still on. I've been *trying* to like it and I'm failing miserably. The storylines are awful, the acting (or possible the George Lucas-way of writing lines that actors just can't speak) is horrible.

I love the *idea* behind the show, but execution is just so bad that I just deleted the season pass.

ruhk wrote:

I Interpreted Legion's comment as saying that religion was being used as the primary divisive topic in society, and without it we would just have to find something else to bitch about.

Primary by itself? No.
ONE of the primary ones? Unquestionably.
Would we find something else to bitch about? Without a doubt.

Get rid of everything you want. Make us all one gender and one race. People will still find ways to separate themselves from others. The more differences you get rid of, the more aggravated the remaining differences seem in peoples' minds. In the end, differences will be as silly as "big endian vs. little endian" (as in Gulliver's Travels, not as in computer byte order).

It's human nature. People have a burning need to belong and be included. But what they belong to has to be mutually exclusive from some other group. If everyone is included, then being included holds no value. It does nothing to satisfy the "us vs. them" nature.

If you believe that religion holds no basis in reality, then you can frame religion as the perfect example of my argument: a man-made creation to separate some people from other people. Get rid of religion, and all you'll get is 5 minutes before another man-made creation comes along to fill its void.

I am totally and completely sorry for inadvertantly turning this thread in this direction. I like TV, honest. I don't know how this happened.

Now.

*Legion wrote:

Get rid of everything you want. Make us all one gender and one race. People will still find ways to separate themselves from others. The more differences you get rid of, the more aggravated the remaining differences seem in peoples' minds. In the end, differences will be as silly as "big endian vs. little endian" (as in Gulliver's Travels, not as in computer byte order).

Atheism is not about creating some homogenous master race. Most atheists want to see an end to religion because a.)western religion thrives in and breeds the type of divisiveness you are talking about, and is therefore highly caustic to a civilized society, and b.)we hate ignorance, which western religion encourages because it needs it to survive.

Yes, most people (myself not included) need to feel as though they are part of a group, and that entails finding differences with other groups, but most people wouldn't feel just and moral if their book club started persecuting and warring with another book club for having a different book of the week.

In a civilized society variety would be encouraged, because it leads to debate, and therefore, progress. However, western religions teach that being "different" is BAD: "if you aren't one of the faithful, you are damned for all eternity". Alot of the things you are proclaiming as human nature aren't human nature, they are the product of centuries of dogmatic doctrination that variety is evil.
Read the Bible, it's all in there.

(Also, this doesn't really seem to be about tv anymore, if you feel the need to continue this conversation we may need to, gulp, move to p&c)

Has anyone else been following Kenny vs. Spenny?

ruhk wrote:

Atheism is not about creating some homogenous master race.

I never implied it did. I think that it's just a tad optimistic in what the eradication of religion would entail. I think you think I'm pinning a bunch of stuff on atheism and I'm not. My only suggestion is the goal of "suppressing religion" (quoting from a dictionary definition of atheism here) might not lead to the desired enlightenment you might expect.

but most people wouldn't feel just and moral if their book club started persecuting and warring with another book club for having a different book of the week.

No, but you sell the human imagination (and ignorance) short if you think that's the best people could come up with in such a situation.

Read the Bible, it's all in there.

And again, if you believe religion has no basis in reality, that shows you how far people will go to make a way to separate themselves from others. There's no reason to believe people wouldn't find another way to be ignorant and go to just as extreme of lengths.

(Also, this doesn't really seem to be about tv anymore, if you feel the need to continue this conversation we may need to, gulp, move to p&c)

I think we're repeating ourselves now, so we're pretty much done.

But I think the point of an episode like that is to spark this kind of discussion.

I'm definitely part of the Legion camp here - and anyone not in agreement with him is most likely looking at an uncomfortable afterlife.

/irony

Look at Ayn Rand and her Collective. They were absolute athiests, and objectivism, their philosophy, was free market on steroids.

But the formed a group the deified Ayn Rand, as was really nothing more than a nasty cult. I loved Atlas Shrugged and many of her essays, butas I reaqd more about the people that formed the Collective (which included Alan Greenspan), it really turned me off. They just formed a religion around athiesm and Ayn's philosophy.

Personally, I think there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that there was some sort of creator. No one has any real clue who or what God is, but I think being Athiest takes a certain amount of faith.

I'm agnostic, because I don't want to pretend that I know that there is no God. That still leaves plenty of room for being against organized religion without forcing anyone to commit to a belief that there is no such thing as God.

Jayhawker wrote:

Personally, I think there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that there was some sort of creator. No one has any real clue who or what God is, but I think being Athiest takes a certain amount of faith.

Waah?

Not only is there no evidence whatsoever, but faith, the linchpin upon which all western religion hangs, requires that there can never, ever, be any evidence. Evidence of a Creator undermines faith, and without faith religion goes out the window.
I'm not an atheist because I don't want to believe, I'm an atheist because I investigated, studied, read, analyzed, searched and found nothing to believe but old mythology mistakenly guised as fact through time.
As for Ayn Rand, she was more capitalist than atheist. People are so used to "believing" that when they cast out an old god they just inadvertantly substitute it with something else, and turn that into their new religion. It could just as easily be a dollar sign instead of a cross.

Sooooo, anyone see the newest "Lost?" Why does the fog monster no longer hate trees? Whats up with that?!? (sly attempt at re-tracking the thread)

I did say circumstantial. We are here. Life has very strong ability to adapt. These are systems that certainly can lead many of use to lean toward "something" worth talking about. While no one can prove there is a God beyond a reasonable doubt, I would also say no one can prove there is not a God beyond a reasonable doubt.

I still want to keep intelligent design out of the science classroom, and in the philosophy department where these issues have been discussed for ages. There is no evidence that any of the current organized religons have any more of a clue about God than anyone else, but denying that there is something there is to deny all kinds of clues that there is something that created us.

Maybe we're just in a petrie dish of some junior high school kid's science project. Maybe there is an all-knowing creator. Maybe the creator has left the scene ages ago. Those are questions we can have dreat discussions about, but there is no evidence any of them are more right than any other. But the denial that there is even a possiblity? That's a leap of faith.

Yes, Ayn is a capitalist, but if you've read any of her essays, she is a fervent athiest, and has written plenty about it. My point was that the group that formed around her, acted just as irrational as any organized religion. Which is to say, we don't need religion in order to create irrational orginizations that create tension and conflict in the world.

ruhk, I am finding myself experience a great deal of mental vertigo when I read your posts in this thread. You've got some right ideas, but you are jumping over things in an effort to share them. Jayhawker did indeed say circumstantial, and evidence itself does not indicate proof positive - it is something that points towards a conclusion. There is indeed "evidence" of god's existence, just as there may be "evidence" to the contrary.

You are right that proof positive would destroy faith, because faith is a belief in something not fully proven, but you are completely wrong to say that if faith goes, so does religion. Religion, as defined, barely references faith, and when it does it generally references a somewhat different meaning of "faith" than the one that we are discussing.

Also, thanks for the Lost spoilers.

Amazingly enough, I started following the 3rd season of LOST and caught up to the latest episode. I find it admirable how they're trying to fix the cluster*&#@ with which they ended Season 2, even if it does involve literally respawning people at different locations like in a game of Quake 3.

Wait, hold that thought, no, it still sucks. But I like their continuous flashbacks and attempts at character development. "The bears figured it out in a day". Heh !

P.S. I am God. Please stop your puny arguments about me.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

You are right that proof positive would destroy faith, because faith is a belief in something not fully proven, but you are completely wrong to say that if faith goes, so does religion. Religion, as defined, barely references faith, and when it does it generally references a somewhat different meaning of "faith" than the one that we are discussing.

That's why I make the distinction between "religion" as a whole, and "western religion," which does, in fact, rest entirely and tenuously upon the concept of faith. I'm not an outsider where religion is concerned. I grew up in the the backwoods of the midwest, in an insanely religious area with an insanely religious family. I actually used to be a Sunday School teacher in my late teens (for not quite a year). S'truth! The only thing that saved me from a lifetime of faith-based lobotomization is a happy genetic concurrence that made my personality prone to inquisitiveness and skepticism.

Also, is it a spoiler that fog monster's political stance on trees has shifted? He hasn't uprooted one for over a season, now. Why, he's practically a tree lover!

Also, as great as this convo is, I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable carrying it on under the guise of television, my almighty lord and master. If someone wants to move the pertinent threads somewhere so we can leave these nice people alone, I'll pick it up over there, otherwise I'm going to try to refrain from further non-tv talk in a tv thread, lest the wrath of the goddess Televizzula rain down upon me.

I watched part two of that South Park episode last night, and apparently the entire argument I inadvertantly started was somewhat invalid.
According to the last nights' show, the future Cartman wakes up in isn't a future based on atheism, but rather, a future based on Mr. Garrison's version of atheism. This is revealed when the Sea Otter's "Allied Atheist Alliance" explains that their society started when "Mrs. Garrison showed Richard Dawkins that logic and reason where not enough, you also needed to be a total dick to anyone who disagrees with you."

So the message of the show wasn't that humans are hard-wired to be dicks to each other regardless of philosophy, but rather it was the generically sappy "we all just need to get along and everything will be dandy."

So anyway...

With all the Buck Rogers references, you'd think they'd throw in a Colonel Wilma Deering-esque character.

Rat Boy wrote:

With all the Buck Rogers references, you'd think they'd throw in a Colonel Wilma Deering-esque character.

I was wondering why it looked so familiar, I knew they were referencing something but couldn't quite place my finger on it. My personal favorite, though, was the obscure Army of Darkness reference at the end, when Cartmen gets sent to the wrong time

Okay, I'm back. And I'm here to talk about House again.

Wait, don't leave, read the next line before you skip the rest.

I was wrong.

It's been almost a year since I watched season 1, and after how adamantly the fans of the show here defended it I decided to rent season 1 again, and season 2, from my store. To give it a second chance with a new outlook. And you guys were right. Granted, I still think I made valid points about the show's weaknesses. I think sometimes it's caught between trying to be CSI in a hospital or being a more story driven show like ER or Grey's. But even though the episodes are pretty formulaic, there are enough that aren't, like Euphoria, the Mistake, and Three Stories. And House himself is always hilarious. There are plenty of times I laughed out loud, like the time he offered to solve the problems of the woman with allergies to her cat that didn't want medication by lending her a sack to drown it in.

I was judging it as a non-episodic show, which is blaming it for being things it doesn't try to be. Not that it's completely episodic either, because the parts that keep me watching are the crumbs of story they sprinkle along in each episode. Which also drives me crazy, since most of the time I'll have to wait until the last 5 episodes to see any of them resolved.

Do I wish the characters were developing more? Yes. Do I wish they didn't string me along so much and for so long with certain storylines? Yes. But it's consistently well done, and always entertaining, and I nearly choked on my food when House's cane broke.

So to recap, everyone who said the show itself isn't as important as being able to watch House himself rampage about, you were right, and I was wrong.

So the message of the show wasn't that humans are hard-wired to be dicks to each other regardless of philosophy

I'll disagree with you there. Even at the very end where there are no more atheist leagues and Cartman asks if there is no more war, the answer was no, China still wants Alaska so there is war, etc.

With all the Buck Rogers references, you'd think they'd throw in a Colonel Wilma Deering-esque character.

There was one, the girl who was walking around with the Robo-dog.

On another note, my TiVo has been acting up and I'm not sure if the last Venture Bros I taped was the last one. It was after the wedding where Dr. Girlfriend is going to tell Monarch somethig and he yells "WHAT?" as they are panning away from the Hive. Was that the last one this season?

Also, still really enjoying Prison Break as well.

On another note, my TiVo has been acting up and I'm not sure if the last Venture Bros I taped was the last one. It was after the wedding where Dr. Girlfriend is going to tell Monarch somethig and he yells "WHAT?" as they are panning away from the Hive. Was that the last one this season?

Cartoon Network started doing the same "split season" tactics that the SciFi Channel does. The rest of the season, and Doc Girlfriend's big secret, should start airing in March I think.

Personally, I think she's pregnant with Phantom Limb's baby.

LockAndLoad wrote:

Personally, I think she's pregnant with Phantom Limb's baby.

Well, I suppose the Alchemist could do a quicky DNA test with the...er...piece of Phantom Limb he recovered.

Rat Boy wrote:
LockAndLoad wrote:

Personally, I think she's pregnant with Phantom Limb's baby.

Well, I suppose the Alchemist could do a quicky DNA test with the...er...piece of Phantom Limb he recovered.

Is thinking she admitted to being a man too obvious?

Did she ever sleep with Venture? Maybe he's her baby's daddy!

* NCIS - Hooray, last minute edits to keep up with current events!

* The Unit - This episode is probably more significant for those of us who read executive producer Eric L. Haney's Inside Delta Force. His account of the selection process matches up blow-for-blow with Bob's flashback.

So, does this mean The Unit is good now? I asked about it, say, 5 pages ago, and the response was lukewarm. I watch little TV, so lukewarm doesn't get me on the couch.

By "little" I mean that the only shows that I'm watching that are currently in production are Battlestar and Heroes.

Definitely a lot better, though I still feel the occasional need to fast-forward through the segments that focus on the spouses.