indeed. why even make cars if it is healthier and better for the environment to walk and ride bicycles? or planes? or motors? etc.

This is an old fallacy, really.

[quote="Ryan"]Correct about what? [/quote]

Hmmm...perhaps I was referring to what I quoted? There is no myth, no fallacy, and no half truth unless our values were based entirely on what is best for our health and our environment. (Hint: They aren't.)

i just saw wall-e. it was alright. It was really pretty, but the characters weren't as gripping as, say, finding nemo.

[quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Ryan"]Correct about what? [/quote]

Hmmm...perhaps I was referring to what I quoted? There is no myth, no fallacy, and no half truth unless our values were based entirely on what is best for our health and our environment. (Hint: They aren't.)[/quote]

face-palm.wut

sheer, I don't mean to be rude, but your scant repertoire of reasoning about supposed "value" is becoming increasingly more repetitive, less reasonable and less interesting to me. Progress is a half-way myth [i]because[/i] we can never address everyone's concerns, and in fact a lot of them are contradictory, which means that progress towards them all is impossible. We can only make tiny gains towards ones we cherish as a group (at least in America, because that's how democracy works), even though those gains are sometimes followed by losses elsewhere. What we call progress, in other words, is not a universally good thing, but we try, at least.

I'd [i]rather[/i] talk about the movie though. After seeing it a second time, I think the reason I enjoyed it the most is that it understands that love, the centerpiece of the movie, deserves far more focus than the film's slightly awkward social commentary (or anything in our silly debates, for that matter).

Ryan, I don't mean to be rude, but you never seem to be able to hold a discussion with Sheer, but rather just try to brush him off with silly excuses. I'm starting to think you just really don't understand what the fuck he's talking about enough to really reply to it or discuss it.

[quote="Ryan"]
sheer, I don't mean to be rude, but your scant repertoire of reasoning about supposed "value" is becoming increasingly more repetitive, less reasonable and less interesting to me. Progress is a half-way myth [i]because[/i] we can never address everyone's concerns, and in fact a lot of them are contradictory, which means that progress towards them all is impossible. We can only make tiny gains towards ones we cherish as a group (at least in America, because that's how democracy works), even though those gains are sometimes followed by losses elsewhere. What we call progress, in other words, is not a universally good thing, but we try, at least.[/quote]

Yes, many values contradict each other, and you'd be correct if progress were a zero-sum game. But it isn't. If three people benefit from something, and one person disbenefits from it, that is progress. I never said progress was universally good for everyone. Laws against murder disbenefit murderers, no? However, I'm pretty sure I'd put a notch under "progress" for them.

Now let's talk about the movie, if you will.

it was pretty.

I don't think you're right in that last paragraph, though, sheer. Just look at union laws. I'm not sure if they repealed some of the laws or not from the 70s or so, but people not in the union had lost most of their power to do anything. They were at the mercy of the uniuons, even though the union was supposed ot help them. you're forced to join a union even if you don't want it, and if the union calls a strike, there wasn't much you could do about it.

I don't think you meant it, but you were just seemingly trying to justify collective laws, the ones that benefit one group at the expense of another.

A more recent example would be the laws passed in oregon requiring them to report the income of family members. Agreeing to discloose your own is one thing, but you are stepping over someone else's rights to privacy when you do this, and some 200 officials have been forced to resign because of what they feel is an invasion of privacy, not on them, but their family.

[quote="clouds"]I don't think you meant it, but you were just seemingly trying to justify collective laws, the ones that benefit one group at the expense of another.[/quote]

This.

Unless sheer wants to further define what he means by "progress."
Blindly saying "If three people like it and one doesn't, then that's progress!" is leads right into issues with civil rights, and racial inequality.

I was referring to equivalent gains/losses in a purely hypothetical sense (since values cannot be accurately measured). It is needless to say (to me) that a single violation of civil rights is greater than any number of gains that others may see.

I like how this thread got derailed because Ryan was just saying that walking/biking is good for people's health and shouldn't be forgotten.

The best part was that he wasn't even advocating that we should run and/or bike instead of using cars n' stuff.

yeah, but he has a history

Well, why [i]shouldn't[/i] we derail this thread? I'm not advocating that we should derail this thread or anything, though.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]Well, why [i]shouldn't[/i] we derail this thread? I'm not advocating that we should derail this thread or anything, though.[/quote]

It's improper e-tiquette

Come on kids, let's talk about Wall-E now. I just saw it last night.
I think the problem with Wall-E is that the movie was limited by being a "kids" movie - well, a Pixar animated feature that also "should" appeal to a younger set.
Take the first 30-45 minutes - absolutely brilliant. It was textured, atmospheric, dramatic. When the title screen came up in front of the desolate wasteland of trash heaps, did anyone else immediately think the movie would entirely kick ass? I know I did. To start a movie the way that they did was pretty risky, risking alienating the kids due to the bleak nature of what was going on.
But yeah, the beginning was fantastic, really drew me in. From Wall-E's interactions with the objects, to really making me demand to know "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE? THIS IS SO COOL." That's good movie making.

But when the humans got on the scene, things changed. Gone was the realism, gone was the somber tone. It just slapped you in the face with: "Hey, remember how stupid, fat, and lazy humans are? Remember how materialism will be the downfall of our society?"

The commentary isn't sharp enough or new enough to intrigue the more adult crowd. The commentary will just fly over the heads the younger crowd. There's just a little sweet spot in the age group where they might recognize what is actually being said here - sort of like An Inconvenient Truth For Kidz! So that's fine for them. But I just feel like the movie was limited by being obligated to appeal to the family crowd. The way it is, it just can't fire on every cylinder (for me at least).
So I can't really dock it for being too "preachy". It was trying to convey a clear and important message about human society to the younger crowd, so I can't dock it for being simplistic.

That being said, Wall-E was the most adorable thing I've seen in a long time. The whole time he (ok, fine, "it") was trying to woo Eve, I was bawww'ing uncontrollably in my mind.

the big piles of trash brought idiocracy immediately to mind.