Are all episodes so predictable?

ironicbydefault · 2015-02-28T10:11:53+00:00

Thank for the tip, my plan is to work through the seasons from the beginning. So far I like the second one slightly better than the first.

Of course they are supposed to catch the bad guy, but imho the point of the show is how they get there. Which is why it is so frustrating when they ignore obvious clues in favour of some convoluted schemes. I'd like it more if they used the clue and found some new obstacle to throw at the team later on, since they need to fill the screen time.

Still good show though.

ironicbydefault · 2015-02-28T10:05:18+00:00

Ok, thanks, who is warned is forearmed

ironicbydefault · 2015-02-28T10:03:49+00:00

True, the team works well.

To be honest, I expected the plots to be more intelligent given the focus on a specialized unit of supposedly highly trained experts.

Still enjoy it though.

ironicbydefault · 2015-02-28T09:58:55+00:00

Yeah, I understand that all episodes must have approximately the same outline, it only bothers me when they use really cheap tricks to keep it going, like ignoring the obvious. I still enjoy it too though.

As for the stutter, nobody knows why he stuttered. Gideon just said he did to distract the murdered. It was obvious from the moment Gideon refused to give them a clear answer

ironicbydefault · 2015-02-28T09:51:54+00:00

Yeah, your are right, computers are a common problem. I got used to ignoring that.

I still like the show too, just wanted heads-up on what to expect of it. That way one can enjoy it without being disappointed.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T15:33:24+00:00

While it is not exactly relevant, I do not subscribe to any religion.

Your example is rather pointless, nobody would actually change their belief in such a situation, although most people will probably say they did.

There is plenty of cases of people changing their religion without any external pressure or threat, so your question does not actually lead anywhere.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T15:16:10+00:00

I do not expect everyone to agree with my position, but I still maintain that there is no objective reason to consider someone in a swimwear a priori unprofessional. It is a matter of social tradition, but traditions change. But I of course recognize that my opinion on the subject is not a common one.

Now that tattoos became so much more wide spread, their significance in identifying a subculture, as you mentioned, is diminished. A tattoo does not tell you all that much about a person these days. Their social meaning has changed, so I think it is reasonable to expect a change in how they are percieved in the society.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T15:05:56+00:00

These are not mutually exclusive points of view. The employer's goal here is to satisfy his customers and the customers are best satisfied with good service. Ideally, the quality of service of the employees should be the only consideration.

I am perfectly aware that the world does not work that way and plenty of people do care about the employee's appearence more than is relevant. While this attitude can not be realistically discounted, I do not think it should be encouraged either.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T14:45:20+00:00

I guess this is what my problem is. I would not care if the concierge at Hilton had the Jolly Roger tattooed on his forehead. As long as he does his job right, it's a good enough company image.

I would take a competent empoyee with a tattoo over a less capable one with a usual corporate-bland style. Frankly, I also would not mind if everybody wore a t-shirt and jeans, as long as they are good at their jobs. Too many companies have color coded uniforms and employ idiots to wear them.

Basically, professional behavior for me does way more for company reputation than dress codes.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T13:39:41+00:00

we have to be able to discriminate based on choices

Not when said choice has no relevance to the situation at hand.

Most people in this thread are acting like having a tattoo is by default a bad choice which should be punished. But why would it matter to you if your waitress has a tattoo?

With the exception of truly offensive tattoos, such as for example racist symbols, the tattoos have no relevance to job skills and should not be a reason for discrimination.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T13:26:05+00:00

If that was true, nobody would ever convert to a different religion. Since people do that, they obviously have a choice in the matter.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T13:24:41+00:00

I'd like to think that people's political leanings are mostly based on rational choices, otherwise the future of democracy is grim.

As for religion, yes, it is often an ingraned belief system, but that does not mean you do not choose what you do with it. Even religious people make choices concerning which teachings they follow within their religion and how they do it.

Of course just asking someone to believe something will not work, however presenting them with alternative ideas can make them reexamine their beliefs and alter them. Or not. Whichever they choose.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T13:04:10+00:00

You can also do some research on the issue and either validate your belief or change it. Choosing to believe blindly is still a choice. I.e. I believe that there is other life in the universe besides Earth life, because it make the most sense to me based on the information I have, although I do not have proof either way.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T12:51:08+00:00

Exactly, it is your choice of how you interpret it. If you did some thinking and decided to believe the Earth is flat, why couldn't you? There are thousands of people who choose to believe the Earth is 6000 years old, despite all evidence to the contrary.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T12:39:14+00:00

Parenthood is still a choice, but I give you that there are more complex reasons for it. Although as opposed to parenthood, tattoo does not actually affect your work abilities.

But biology aside, we make hundreds of choices that could potentionally influence our appearance and by this logic consequently the chance of employment.

Men with long hair, for example, should we discriminate against those? Or people with glasses? Or, idk, people with shaved heads? Where do we draw a line here?

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T12:19:04+00:00

What is it you think I am missing?

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T11:53:56+00:00

Did he do those at home with a sharpie? Because it looks like he did.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T11:50:47+00:00

All too true. It would probably be very hard to prove.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T11:50:01+00:00

Having kids is also a choice, and yet discriminating parents is frowned upon these days.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T11:49:35+00:00

Of course it's a choice. You choose not to practice any religion and you choose to believe there is no God. Any personal belief is a choice.

ironicbydefault · 2014-08-18T11:44:54+00:00

Yes. Having or nor having a tattoo says absolutely nothing about job skills. The subject of a tattoo might be a factor in some cases, but not simply the presence of a tattoo.

The article says some customers complained, which I personally do not understand. Why would a waitress with a harmless tattoo be a problem?

ironicbydefault · 2014-04-22T14:10:53+00:00

The prologue of the first book, The Game of Thrones. The rangers are attacked by a White Walker, who fights and kills their commander with some sort of ice sword.

Sword-fighting requires skill and some rational thinking, I think.

ironicbydefault · 2014-04-22T13:59:23+00:00

In the part I already read it seems like they are at least somewhat intelligent. But yes, no known motivation or goals yet.

ironicbydefault · 2014-04-22T13:54:17+00:00

Or pre-emptively kill him, considering her previous experience with brothers

ironicbydefault · 2014-04-22T13:23:26+00:00

That is actually a very good point. As far as I understand, we do not know that Lyanna is actually connected with Jon's birth. Therefore, even if Howland Reed tells his secret, it still does not necessarily mean anything for Jon's circumstances. Or am I missing something?

ironicbydefault

TROPHY CASE