Books You Want Horribly Destroyed.
- Thread starter Blind Sight
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just Twighlight, the entirety of the series, it pisses me off because I am a guy and I get angry at how badly portrayed women are in it. Think back to how much of that book is a girl pining after a guy who treats her like crap.
Ofcourse this is a matter of opinion. But i thought the bible well written, to have some good stories and actually put across some great guidelines. I would go ahead and take the guess that you havent read it but copy it out as the worst part of the christian religion?Azure-Supernova said:
*OT* Danish/german dictionary. I, hate, that, book.
Ummmm... no... I haven't read it and I was cold and the only wood we could find was damp... I didn't specifically pick the bible to burn as an attack on Chrisitianity. I burned it because the alternative to it was our socks.Nikolaz72 said:
in the end of things Dawkin's is just another religious extremist, he just spews a different message. Atheism is no less a religion then Christianity, it follows are just as willing to shove their beliefs (or lack there-of) down the throats of anyone who dares to have a difference of opinion. and with Atheism it worse because at-least Christians believe that are trying to save the souls of others then they do it.craddoke said:
Frankly any religious books, for I believe they are merely the result of a group of people trying to get other people to join their group en invest in the, later becoming the church and so on. I wouldnt burn them, i respect anyone who wants to read them, also it would be a shame of the paper, it's perfect to use it as uhm... toilet paper. For those who can't buy regular toilet paper because the donated all their money to the church.
Anyway religious stuff aside, there are other books I wan't to burn, no not the twilight saga, not yet atleast.
The books of harry potter after the third one, simply because they are merly milking the saga, they are not good, or original and just like remakes of games, or bad sequels (you know like the opposide of mass effect 2 and such). They should be burned and, as Yathzee (GO WATCH ZERO PUNCTUATION) mentioned more than once, their creators should be banishd to a seperate part of Hell. Or whatever place they go to after their deaths.
Toilet paper.
Anyway religious stuff aside, there are other books I wan't to burn, no not the twilight saga, not yet atleast.
The books of harry potter after the third one, simply because they are merly milking the saga, they are not good, or original and just like remakes of games, or bad sequels (you know like the opposide of mass effect 2 and such). They should be burned and, as Yathzee (GO WATCH ZERO PUNCTUATION) mentioned more than once, their creators should be banishd to a seperate part of Hell. Or whatever place they go to after their deaths.
Toilet paper.
I think this is a line of bull - atheism is about accepting the fact that there is no evidence for the supernatural and that reason therefore dictates we live based on the hypothesis that there are no supernatural forces. What you say about a "live and let live" philosophy being superior makes sense on the level of the individual, but communities (local, national, international) also have to decide whether they're going to act as if they believe in the supernatural or not. There is no middle ground since certain policies (e.g., abortion rights, obscenity laws, equal rights) will differ dramatically based on the community's decision. In my opinion, the only ethical choice is for a community to function as an atheistic state (you can substitute "agnostic" if that makes you feel better, but practically there is no difference). I would say that the apparent "aggression" of atheists in recent years is a direct response to renewed efforts by deists (mostly conservative Christians and Muslims) to undermine the atheist foundations of modern government/society.ANImaniac89 said:
I can't say that I have hated a book that much to be quite honest with you. I am not going to say Twilight because even though I myself hated it and couldn't even get halfway through the first book, if it gets people to read then thats surely a bad thing. They may start with "Twilight" and then move on to something like "Dracula" or Edgar Allen Poe so even if books like "Twilight" and "Harry Potter" get at least one kid to read then thats by no means a bad thing. If there is something you dislike, just try and avoid it.
Arguably, isn't porn for men just as pointless (no pun intended)? I mean, it has a 1 dimensional plot and less developed characters then Twilight, and porn writing never has been that good. Unless you're reading Alan Moore's porn, which is freaking AMAZING.Talshere said:
I somewhat agree, I feel that atheists actually take up two categories. One is the 'religious' atheists, i.e. the people who challenge religious folk about their beliefs regardless of their evidence. Making claims completely unfounded (i.e. there's no God) and stating them as fact? Sounds like religion. The second (and far more likeable kind) is the irrelevant atheist. Irrelevant atheists simply don't believe in a God, nor do they often think about metaphysics or the afterlife. They merely cannot believe anything without evidence and don't really think about metaphysical concepts like God. These are the people who don't fight with religious folk unless openly challenged.craddoke said:
I'm an irrelevant atheist, by the way, I don't give a shit what your religious beliefs are, unless you're using them to try and suppress, murder, or take advantage of people who haven't choose to be part of your religion.
You want slow paced? Try watching the Redux version of Apocalypse Now, which is pretty much just Heart of Darkness in Vietnam. Also, most of the actors are stoned throughout the movie (including Martin Sheen and Dennis Hopper). The movie was so hard to film that Francis Ford Coppola tried to commit suicide over it. I love the movie though, it's just pure jungle insanity.rabidmidget said:
Blind Sight said:
And if Twilight were porn, you would have a point. However, when I google porn, the is a significant difference between the two.
The big difference is that Porn exists to show naked people having sex in highly unconvincing ways. Twilight is SUPPOSED to have a story. Its SUPPOSED to have meaningful characters, because it fails in this its actually worse than porn because it fails to achieve its purpose.
No, not really. Female fan service is Ouran Host Club, its sexually hinting content in ADDITION to a plot and story, not INSTEAD of it. If your not going to have the whole story bit you might as well just go the whole hog and just make a womans PoV porn film.Future Hero said:
I note that you're a guy from your profile, and that somewhat explains why you view it as distinct from porn. The fact is, even if it's not by direct definition, it's used primarily in this way by girls. Why? Because just like porn for men, Twilight simply has enough turn-ons for women. Many (note: not all)women like strong, independent, sensitive men who they can then bend to their will. Edward is the personification of this, a hundred year old man who gives up his independence for a girl. I'd also note that the books actively describe Edward for pages, while Bella gets nothing, very similar to how in most male porn we don't exactly get strip-teases from guys.Talshere said:
The fact is that even though it's not porn, it's appeal is rooted in themes similar to porn. Both are about what each gender wants as a partner, with men naturally wanting multiple females and women wanting utterly devoted men. Girls like this because they want utterly devoted men, regardless of the fact that he's a stalker.
Blind Sight said:
Idk, I keep on attacking the story, then someone ELSE brings up my comment comparing it to porn, so I retaliate in kind and now its ME making the comparisons.... -.-
Just as a side note, I feel I should point out most of my favourite books actually have female leads, so the whole describing the guy thing is something m used to. I feel that often male leading characters get stereotyped and in essence, you know one, you know em all, while female leads seem to be somewhat more fluid. So yes, I have read book using this PoV before. GOOD books.
I have read enough to be able to tell a series such as The Black Magician Trilogy, a GOOD series, from a FEMALE PoV, written by a FEMALE writer. You cant defend shody writing with "but look he's such a hunk and look how he cares" that's just bullshit. Most chick flicks have better story base than that.
Its a poorly written book.
Its characters are shallow, 1 dimensions and only capable of one emotion at any given time if we are lucky, and all 4 books are given over to beating the poor same overused cliché into the ground over and over again.
Aye, it is poorly written, that can be agreed on, but I'm more pointing out what the readers of Twilight go for. They don't give a shit about story, what they want is Vampire McSparklypants to take his shirt off. You say you can't defend shody writing with attractive men, but Stephanie Meyer's bank account disagreesTalshere said:
It's all about tailoring to your audience.
Blind Sight said:Aye, it is poorly written, that can be agreed on, but I'm more pointing out what the readers of Twilight go for. They don't give a shit about story, what they want is Vampire McSparklypants to take his shirt off. You say you can't defend shody writing with attractive men, but Stephanie Meyer's bank account disagreesTalshere said:
Yep, and the Nigerian banker is still raking in the cash. All was have proven is that people are idiots and sheep. Not that Twilight shouldnt burn, as valuable shelf space in the fantasy area are taken up by woman in a mid-life crisis intent on ruining the entire vampire genre for everyone else, with shoddy writing.