Look at what they offer. They're the same multi-blade nonsense you can get at any drug store. Unless the quality is substantial, it's just a monthly subscription to the same type of product you would normally buy.
Daguerreotypes took at least 10 minutes to expose. They look unhappy because they had to pose for a long time and not move an inch. There's probably a bar holding their heads straight too.
They weren't involved with the movie because of the animated series. They weren't fans, and doubted the movie until it was completed. They only had time to record a little live action bit at the end, and they didn't even voice their own characters. They were involved through inspiration, but not production.
Terribly done. I feel sorry for the person with that on their skin. It looks nothing like Mitchell and the lines on the girder aren't even straight. I'm not sure if it's a joke (Perfection? Hardly!), but it certainly is awful.
@Ryan S I've been reading some Kuhn lately, and I believe that you and I are feeling some incommensurability in our paradigms. We are talking over each others heads, and It's more masturbatory than enlightening to either of us. I'm not entirely convinced of your opinion of homosexuality because of this snippet of your post, "homosexuality is not very conducive to production and appears to be primarily based in "I want" and "I need" egotistical striving". No, it isn't. It flat-out is not. You've created a large and complex closed system that gives you plenty of busy-work but doesn't relate to the objective truth. If this were anything but a small blog in the interwebs, I would offer you my best worded and clearest rational response, but as this is just a personal crusade I hereby resign before we get too deep. I'm not going to be able to convince a stranger over the internet and same with you. Thanks for sharing your worldview, it's been a pleasure (no sarcasm).
Ok, now that I'm off work, I reread some of the posts and I have just a bit more to add. "Born this way" is a counterargument, a social argument meant to appeal to your pathos. It isn't an entire worldview, it's a response. It's a rejection of societal norms and their pressures on harmless differences in us all. It's an argument for the nature and against the nurture. It most importantly does not condone paedophilia or beastiality, you're taking it literally and also out of context (wow, that's impressive).
@Ryan S "If it was being argued that homosexuality is okay, then there would be no need to appeal to genetics or heritability." The appeal to genetics or heritability is partly because we (I am LGBT, I'll just put that out there and see what happens) need a defense against people who feel that "alternative" sexualities are an abomination and partly because Scientists and laymen are plain curious. I wasn't going to get into the justifications for Homosexuality, just wanted to point out the flaw in your reasoning. Your ramble about public school education not teaching logic is bunk too. I went to public schools, a community college, and now a California State School, and I've taken Philosophy and Logic classes in all of them. I appreciate your love of wisdom, but you seem to be more in love with your own wisdom. I'm no subjectivist, but I believe you're a little too dogmatic from reading the scant few posts you have written here. Yes, I know that a pigeon passes basic logic better than a person, yes I know that people are full of cognitive dissonance. The problem with ALL of this is the fact that you put your own system of reasoning above all of this. Again, I'm not arguing for Subjectivity, I'm arguing that your worldview has more to do with "awakening" people than the truth.
@Ryan S You do a lot of finger pointing, but may I suggest that you turn that finger towards yourself? You make a lot of accusations and use a lot of loaded language in your appeal to common sense, but you hardly have any. I wish I could go into detail, but suffice it to say that you have labeled "LGBT" as a group and you are scapegoating them. Firstly, no one is saying "I was born Gay so I have to be Gay", as in your assumption with Hume. You're missing the critical middle step, that it's OK to be homosexual. We're moreso saying "I was born Gay, it's OK to be Gay, I'm Gay". You probably didn't want to open that can of worms, so I see why you mentioned it briefly at the end of your post. Still, there's more to chew on later, when you claim "At least one transsexual agreed with autogynephilia"? At least one commenter thinks that's a BS premise for an argument. The field of Psychology is ever expanding and ever changing, like all Sciences, based on the facts that we are able to uncover. The ideas of early Psychologists on gender and sexuality issues are plain ol' incorrect based on new findings and new frameworks. People most often blame a group for "covering up" research, but the reality is that research just isn't accepted as true any more. Whew, I'm taking more time than I have to respond because I fundamentally don't agree with the viewpoint that I assume you have (internet posts are so glib for topics as complex as this). Anyways, back to work.
My mother breeds dwarf hamsters. This is common behavior. Sorry to harsh your buzz, but look on the bright side! If you buy a hamster you will have endless hours of entertainment just by watching it jump and scratch!
Also, the Sun's effect on global climate change is known and studied, and is not the only factor in climate change. The angle of the Sun, the tilt of the Earth, and the shape of the Earth's orbit all effect Earth's temperature in 100k, 40k, and 20k year intervals (I don't care to bring out my notes at the moment to clarify which belongs to which). Scientists are worried about positive and negative feedbacks, which take the natural warming and cooling periods of the Earth and drastically warp them. Humans contribute greatly to the Carbon Dioxide feedback, and what is currently being studied is the long-term effects of this in the whole system. It's easy to just claim that Scientists are just "in it for the money", but I assure you that the climate is a system so freakin' complex that it would take thousands of Scientists YEARS to understand. Hey! wait, that's what we have! Just sit back and relax folks. Try driving your cars and eating less meat. We'll all be better off for it.
None of you are scientist, nor do you know what you are talking about. Anthropogenic causes of global warming (climate change) are understood to be a factor in climate change, just how much is to be studied further. All of you who claim that scientists "change their opinions with their diapers" do not understand that the scientists are working with DATA, and we accrue MORE DATA over time, thus we are able to refine our theories. This does not discredit Science, it actually makes Science amazingly powerful and important.
I've been reading some Kuhn lately, and I believe that you and I are feeling some incommensurability in our paradigms. We are talking over each others heads, and It's more masturbatory than enlightening to either of us. I'm not entirely convinced of your opinion of homosexuality because of this snippet of your post, "homosexuality is not very conducive to production and appears to be primarily based in "I want" and "I need" egotistical striving". No, it isn't. It flat-out is not. You've created a large and complex closed system that gives you plenty of busy-work but doesn't relate to the objective truth. If this were anything but a small blog in the interwebs, I would offer you my best worded and clearest rational response, but as this is just a personal crusade I hereby resign before we get too deep. I'm not going to be able to convince a stranger over the internet and same with you. Thanks for sharing your worldview, it's been a pleasure (no sarcasm).
"If it was being argued that homosexuality is okay, then there would be no need to appeal to genetics or heritability."
The appeal to genetics or heritability is partly because we (I am LGBT, I'll just put that out there and see what happens) need a defense against people who feel that "alternative" sexualities are an abomination and partly because Scientists and laymen are plain curious. I wasn't going to get into the justifications for Homosexuality, just wanted to point out the flaw in your reasoning.
Your ramble about public school education not teaching logic is bunk too. I went to public schools, a community college, and now a California State School, and I've taken Philosophy and Logic classes in all of them. I appreciate your love of wisdom, but you seem to be more in love with your own wisdom. I'm no subjectivist, but I believe you're a little too dogmatic from reading the scant few posts you have written here. Yes, I know that a pigeon passes basic logic better than a person, yes I know that people are full of cognitive dissonance. The problem with ALL of this is the fact that you put your own system of reasoning above all of this. Again, I'm not arguing for Subjectivity, I'm arguing that your worldview has more to do with "awakening" people than the truth.
You do a lot of finger pointing, but may I suggest that you turn that finger towards yourself? You make a lot of accusations and use a lot of loaded language in your appeal to common sense, but you hardly have any. I wish I could go into detail, but suffice it to say that you have labeled "LGBT" as a group and you are scapegoating them. Firstly, no one is saying "I was born Gay so I have to be Gay", as in your assumption with Hume. You're missing the critical middle step, that it's OK to be homosexual. We're moreso saying "I was born Gay, it's OK to be Gay, I'm Gay". You probably didn't want to open that can of worms, so I see why you mentioned it briefly at the end of your post. Still, there's more to chew on later, when you claim "At least one transsexual agreed with autogynephilia"? At least one commenter thinks that's a BS premise for an argument. The field of Psychology is ever expanding and ever changing, like all Sciences, based on the facts that we are able to uncover. The ideas of early Psychologists on gender and sexuality issues are plain ol' incorrect based on new findings and new frameworks. People most often blame a group for "covering up" research, but the reality is that research just isn't accepted as true any more. Whew, I'm taking more time than I have to respond because I fundamentally don't agree with the viewpoint that I assume you have (internet posts are so glib for topics as complex as this). Anyways, back to work.