Ahh, let me elaborate... Freedom to speak without fear of reprisal... That good enough? We all have free will in the sense that we can do what our bodies are capable of... doesn't mean you could do it without ramming into someone else's free will.RatGouf said:
The Big Picture: American Sniper Sucks (And It's Okay To Admit That)
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Even if that is true (which I am not convinced of, since there things like logic should be universally applicable, and anyway such an argument leads to a slippery slope where only artists can have an opinion on art, and so on)... even if it is true, isn't the argument undermined in this case by the fact that Eastwood is not a veteran?jacobbanks said:
If only veterans can have an opinion on veterans, doesn't that only apply to the book, and not to the movie, which is an adaptation by a non-veteran?
There's a second layer to the irony when you also take into account that the movie has a pretty strong anti-war message, which for years has typically been something that, no matter the actual quality of the movie, typically gave it an automatic pass by the left and rejection by the right, which is the exact opposite of what happened with American Sniper.Ickabod said:
Depends - what qualifies as a veteran ? The western form of it is more military members in arms way, such that logistics personnel is not counted. If you count only people who have fought in a professional capacity, shed civilians and administrative work, it's quite a small minority.Charcharo said:
I mean, all my heart to people being shelled, but they're not really "veterans".
As it turns out, physical violence as an answer to criticism... not legal.jacobbanks said:You're free to do what ever you like, just not free from reprisal of your actions. The Bill of Rights is documented protection from said reprisal, but is only ensured by those willing to fight for others. And it doesn't you could speak nothing but the truth, but if someone doesn't like that true there is nothing that a piece of paper can do to protect you, its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.Scorpid said:Its so bizzare to me comments like this. I mean what does freedom of speech and being punched in the face have to do with one another? Or why does the poster seem to think that freedom of speech is an ineffectial passage of the bill of rights thats protects nothing? OR how does the poster believe that violence against a speaker proves that the speakers point is invalid?jacobbanks said:Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensiveMicalas said:
Now that is a good question... I could find that agreeable... Clint Eastwood's interpretation of the book is lack luster... Yeah, there you go, common ground.mjharper said:
LEGAL? WHAT IS LEGAL? Does committing an action that is illegal prevent one from preforming such action? No? Thought not...Westonbirt said:As it turns out, physical violence as an answer to criticism... not legal.jacobbanks said:You're free to do what ever you like, just not free from reprisal of your actions. The Bill of Rights is documented protection from said reprisal, but is only ensured by those willing to fight for others. And it doesn't you could speak nothing but the truth, but if someone doesn't like that true there is nothing that a piece of paper can do to protect you, its fighters who protect against those who aim to do harm to others.Scorpid said:Its so bizzare to me comments like this. I mean what does freedom of speech and being punched in the face have to do with one another? Or why does the poster seem to think that freedom of speech is an ineffectial passage of the bill of rights thats protects nothing? OR how does the poster believe that violence against a speaker proves that the speakers point is invalid?jacobbanks said:Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensiveMicalas said:
Making icons is rarely ever about what things actually are, it's more about the zeitgeist and the way people chose to remember it. If a whole wing of the American society chooses to canonize AS as a celebration of military bravery, you can't do anything to stop them. Chris Kyle is an icon, and icons are like statues, they don't say anything, they embody what people want them to.Mortis Nuncius said:
oh wow, that Sarah Palin clip was ridiculous. At first I thought it was a parody and someone mocking her....but it was actually her.
So you're saying that because of the US Military, I don't have to worry about people punching me in the face when I talk. Oh thank god. That's so much easier than filing a police report and having to take someone to court for battery.jacobbanks said:Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensiveMicalas said:
So how does this protection from face punching manifest? If someone throws a punch at me, will a service member materialize in front of me to catch the punch or will they kill me would-be assailant?
Fine. Then as the FOURTH in my line to have served the military, do I get a vote? This movie wasn't the greatest. I didn't think it sucked, but it could have spent more time on what it's really like there, and instead of focusing on "difficult choices made for good reasons" they drudged up a super villain. That trivializes the actual events, to me. Not liking this movie doesn't make you unpatriotic, liking the movie isn't the height of "fight the power", it just happens to entertain some people who enjoy war movies period. Or action.jacobbanks said:
Your idea that these people aren't allowed to speak their opinion because they're not vets is so dumb that it actually hurt my brain. Then why did our forefathers allow ALL to vote instead of simply military minded people? To get the full picture, to be free from exactly those who said if you're not one of these people your opinion doesn't matter. If you want to get up in someone's face about not being 'MURICAN enough to matter, then you've missed the point entirely of what it is WE fight for.
As a veteran, your opinion on veteran related things countsPetiteMoogle said:
however, our forefathers allowed all land owning white men to vote... That said, you can have an opinion on any number of things... Just things your are not familiar with or have no knowledge are things in which your opinion hold no weight.
Why do people insist on feeding obvious sockpuppets? I've never understood that.
Clint Eastwood hasn't put out a good movie in 20 years, whether directing or acting. I didn't expect this to change anything. It's about as rambling as his empty chair speech was.
Clint Eastwood hasn't put out a good movie in 20 years, whether directing or acting. I didn't expect this to change anything. It's about as rambling as his empty chair speech was.
oh no, because of people willing to defend others, not exclusively the military... if you're capable of defending yourself, why worry about people who disagree with you.Micalas said:jacobbanks said:Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensiveMicalas said:
So you're saying that because of the US Military, I don't have to worry about people punching me in the face when I talk. Oh thank god. That's so much easier than filing a police report and having to take someone to court for battery.
So how does this protection from face punching manifest? If someone throws a punch at me, will a service member materialize in front of me to catch the punch or will they kill me would-be assailant?
