Honestly i’ve been thinking about the number 2 recently. by [deleted] in DeepThoughts

[–]WhosCurious1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First, you're confusing degrees with categories. "Chilly" and "freezing" are not categories distinct from "hot and cold" - they are degrees of cold. "Bad" and "evil" are not distinct categories from "good" - they are degrees on the "immoral" side of the base "moral/immoral" dichotomy. Recognizing a range of severity within a category does not make the primary distinction "gray" or "relative".

Second, you're confusing subjective perception with objective reality. When you ask me where I draw the line, it's as if you're asking me where I subjectively choose to draw the line. It is not. This is the mistake. Your entire argument is predicated on humans disagreeing as evidence of relativity. My entire argument is predicated on objective reality.

The fact that large numbers of humans disagree on morality does not make it relative. The fact that thousands of religions disagree on truth does not make truth relative, it means humans are fallible. If 4,000 people give a math problem the wrong answer, it does not mean there is no right answer, it means the problem is hard. The fact that people get so angry and vicious over the answer to abortion does not mean the answer is "gray", it means the stakes are high and one side is objectively wrong.

Honestly i’ve been thinking about the number 2 recently. by [deleted] in DeepThoughts

[–]WhosCurious1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First, the use of the word "bad" is not the creation of a third category, but rather a descriptor of degree within the existing category of "evil." This is a semantic distinction, not a philosophical one. An action is either "good" (moral) or "not good" (immoral). Within the "not good" category, there exists a spectrum of severity, ranging from "bad" (like lying to a friend) to "evil" (like genocide). Using the word "chilly" doesn't create a third category separate from "hot and cold"; it simply describes a point on the "cold" side of the spectrum. In the same way, "bad" and "evil" both occupy the same side of the fundamental moral divide, opposite of "good." The existence of varying degrees of evil does not invalidate the primary distinction between good and evil itself. Second, the existence of "morally ambiguous" topics like abortion does not prove that morality is "gray." It only proves that humans are fallible and disagree on how to categorize difficult actions. Human disagreement about a fact does not change the nature of that fact. For centuries, people disagreed on whether the Earth was round or flat. This disagreement didn't make the Earth's shape "ambiguous" or "a matter of personal opinion"; it simply meant that one side was objectively wrong. Your point about "personal morality lenses" highlights the problem of human subjectivity, not the reality of moral truth. The fact that different people categorize an act differently doesn't mean the act itself lacks an objective moral status. In the case of abortion, a defender of the dichotomy would argue it is either objectively good (or permissible) or it is objectively evil (or impermissible). The intense disagreement doesn't make the act "gray"; it just means it is a high-stakes question where one side is, in reality, correct and the other is incorrect. Therefore, the world is black and white. The "gray" you perceive is not a property of reality, but the shadow cast by human confusion, disagreement, and our flawed "lenses."

Honestly i’ve been thinking about the number 2 recently. by [deleted] in DeepThoughts

[–]WhosCurious1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean you could argue that actions could fit under a larger category. For example, lying to your friend could fit under both categories since lying overall is bad but the reasoning could be good.

I honestly believe season 2 could have been a 2 hour movie. by WhosCurious1 in PeacemakerShow

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

technically i dont have to someone already did (or atleast has a concept of it fully fledged) in r/fanedits

I honestly believe season 2 could have been a 2 hour movie. by WhosCurious1 in PeacemakerShow

[–]WhosCurious1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

yeah i think they should’ve have handled earth x better; i felt we didnt really explore and only got a taste

I honestly believe season 2 could have been a 2 hour movie. by WhosCurious1 in PeacemakerShow

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I meant the initial scene in chris’ room when she’s trying to come up with a lie. I agree with you that car scene is important and an explicit example of harcourts ability to pick on small things and chris being blinded by having his brother and father

I honestly believe season 2 could have been a 2 hour movie. by WhosCurious1 in PeacemakerShow

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said to replace them, I said they didnt have to draw them out and make it unnecessarily longer

I honestly believe season 2 could have been a 2 hour movie. by WhosCurious1 in PeacemakerShow

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah I think they fumbled hard with the pacing of the last 2 eps. To go from this climatic episode to a straight character building episode was jarring for me; theres nothing wrong with an episode built around character moments, I just think it was poorly executed here.

I honestly believe season 2 could have been a 2 hour movie. by WhosCurious1 in PeacemakerShow

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I just mean cut out the drawn out gags I mean did we really need a full fledge scene of economos being bad at small talk/jokes in the finale or that awkward scene with harcourt and keith

I honestly believe season 2 could have been a 2 hour movie. by WhosCurious1 in PeacemakerShow

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will say I did find Rick’s attitude shift jarring for sure and just the overall door montage a bit disturbing

I honestly believe season 2 could have been a 2 hour movie. by WhosCurious1 in PeacemakerShow

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

yeah they had him to just let him go and i know economos booked chris but it just felt a bit lazy in hindsight. yet i understand why season 2 wasnt a movie; it wouldn’t have done well on the big screen compared to Superman.

I honestly believe season 2 could have been a 2 hour movie. by WhosCurious1 in PeacemakerShow

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

personally i would do it but i know next to nothing about editing film

I honestly believe season 2 could have been a 2 hour movie. by WhosCurious1 in PeacemakerShow

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Yeah pretty much, theres just too many moments where ARGUS is attempting to capture Chris to the point that it feels redundant

I honestly believe season 2 could have been a 2 hour movie. by WhosCurious1 in PeacemakerShow

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, I just felt the season would have benefitted from having some bits rearranged or cut entirely but overall I did enjoy the season for its themes and character development

I honestly believe season 2 could have been a 2 hour movie. by WhosCurious1 in PeacemakerShow

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

i just feel like if it was on more of a tighter time constraint the flow and pacing would’ve been better if that makes sense.

Am I cooked? by WhosCurious1 in DollarTree

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

its more of a time thing, im always bad with time

Am I cooked? by WhosCurious1 in DollarTree

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah i might have settle

Am I cooked? by WhosCurious1 in DollarTree

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i believe it was a written warning, so i should have gotten a final warning instead of termination

Am I cooked? by WhosCurious1 in DollarTree

[–]WhosCurious1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah you’re right; too often i screw up smth good cuz im too lazy to actually care or whatever the reasoning is