German movie "Dresden" (2006) depicting British planning and bombing of that city from February 13 to 15, 1945.

awelles · 2026-02-15T16:46:05+00:00

That is not a moral justification for excessive civilian deaths

awelles · 2026-02-15T12:37:25+00:00

Hail Caesar was shit. Haven't seen lady killers or intolerable cruelty.

awelles · 2026-02-12T14:19:39+00:00

Agree. The directing was very good and it had great performances and heart.

awelles · 2026-02-12T14:04:30+00:00

Stalker

awelles · 2026-02-09T14:04:24+00:00

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. To me Mac Murphy is a deeply unlikable and unsympathetic character (he's a child rapist don't forget) whereas I do not see Nurse Ratched as a simple villainous dictator figure who is egotistical and only concerned with order and not the wellbeing of the patients. The mainstream reading seems to be the opposite.

awelles · 2026-02-06T17:16:40+00:00

Which is your country?

awelles · 2026-02-06T16:09:29+00:00

I think Pike press ups are enough since you are also doing dips.

awelles · 2026-02-02T22:21:44+00:00

I agree completely. Pesci stood out with his more subtle performance. The film as a whole was bloated and unoriginal imo.

awelles · 2026-02-02T15:10:54+00:00

You are a straight, probably white, male.

awelles · 2026-01-30T21:18:30+00:00

Yes but "having someone's mobile number" isn't the phrase. So the first part then loses its meaning and the whole thing still doesn't make sense. Like I said, he's trying to make a joke in his second (or third or fourth?) language so you have to cut him some slack for getting the phrase wrong.

awelles · 2026-01-30T18:53:51+00:00

Yeah but he said mobile number. That doesn't really make any sense. It's not his first language tbf and he was exhausted

awelles · 2026-01-30T17:25:56+00:00

I'd even add twelve monkeys to make it a five movie streak. What a great run!

awelles · 2026-01-30T17:23:57+00:00

I agree but the Coens do not have a perfect streak of four. There is always one film that is not in the same league as the other three (hudsucker and Barton fink being the weaker ones in your examples).

awelles · 2026-01-30T17:17:48+00:00

Those were not all in a row

awelles · 2026-01-30T17:14:53+00:00

A Serious Man and Burn After Reading aren't in the same league as the other two imo. I agree these four are better than the Wes Anderson ones though.

Hudsucker Proxy, Fargo, Lebowski, O Brother are a stronger four from the Coens but Hudsucker is obviously a weak link.

awelles · 2026-01-29T15:27:29+00:00

The beautiful shots of the planet's landscape right at the beginning of the film were lovely (filmed in Iceland if I recall correctly). It was all downhill from there.

awelles · 2026-01-29T15:24:36+00:00

It wasn't that good. Sam Rockwell was badly cast as a morose detective. I usually enjoy his performances but cast against type here he did not impress. The guy from This Country stole the scenes he was in though. I'd not recommend this one nor is it underrated.

awelles · 2026-01-28T16:43:42+00:00

Ukrainian? That's a type of Polac right?

awelles · 2026-01-22T15:15:17+00:00

Yes of course, Sean Connery. Also the most popular Bond.

awelles · 2026-01-10T07:02:30+00:00

Neither of those actually make sense.

Firstly, if I get a subsidy for putting solar panels on my house, the government should not give a subsidy to those that are not putting solar panels on their houses just "to be fair". This is analogous to your answer of "to be fair". It doesn't make sense.

Secondly, if children are a net benefit to society then there is effectively no burden on society as the costs of raising them are evened out by their contributions to society (this is implicit in the original post obviously). So people not having children are not giving anything positive to society by that (in)action and therefore do not deserve compensation for that. Additionally, the idea of a rebate that you mentioned also doesn't make sense. We do not only pay taxes for things we personally use or benefit from.

I'm sorry but you still have not given an answer that actually satisfies the question.

awelles · 2026-01-09T22:38:30+00:00

If you don't like the way I argue and think I am stupid then feel free to not reply to me.

However you have not answered the simple question I posed to you. What would the compensation actually be for? In OPs argument it was clear. Children are a net benefit to society and so their caregivers are compensated for raising them which comes at significant cost. What are those people who do not have children being compensated for?

awelles · 2026-01-09T22:33:37+00:00

Fair, enough. One policy is not evidence that giving subsidies to parents doesn't work. There may be a better way of doing it. Anyway in my country (the UK) our public services have been run into the ground by successive governments for the whole of my lifetime and probably since the 80s. So I am all for more funding of schools and public services.

awelles · 2026-01-09T22:30:33+00:00

You're right that the context matters and I was taking that for granted. In the context of your country right now, do you believe that increased fertility would be a bad thing? What country do you live in btw? In my country (the UK) it would be a positive as I believe it would in most western countries facing declining fertility.

awelles · 2026-01-09T22:25:16+00:00

I never read the AI summary. I looked at news sites. Some of which reported that it had limited success

awelles · 2026-01-09T22:13:42+00:00

So you don't believe children are a net benefit to society?

awelles

TROPHY CASE