"Last year we proved that social buzz could successfully predict the Academy Award winner for Best Picture. So this year we wanted to see what else social could predict for Hollywood’s big night."
Adapted Screenplay
Nominees:
- 12 Years a Slave
- Before Midnight
- Captain Phillips
- Philomena
- The Wolf of Wall Street
Original Screenplay
Nominees:
- American Hustle
- Blue Jasmine
- Dallas Buyers Club
- Her
- Nebraska
Actor in a Supporting Role
Nominees:- Barkhad Abdi for Captain Phillips
- Bradley Cooper for American Hustle
- Jared Leto for Dallas Buyers Club
- Jonah Hill for The Wolf of Wall Street
- Michael Fassbender for 12 Years a Slave
Actress in a Supporting Role
Nominees:
- Jennifer Lawrence for American Hustle
- Julia Roberts for August: Osage County
- June Squibb for Nebraska
- Lupita Nyong’o for 12 Years a Slave
- Sally Hawkins for Blue Jasmine
Actor in a Leading Role
Nominees:
- Bruce Dern for Nebraska
- Chiwetel Ejiofor for 12 Years a Slave
- Christian Bale for American Hustle
- Leonardo DiCaprio for The Wolf of Wall Street
- Matthew McConaughey for Dallas Buyers Club
Actress in a Leading Role
Nominees:
- Amy Adams for American Hustle
- Cate Blanchett for Blue Jasmine
- Judi Dench for Philomena
- Meryl Streep for August: Osage County
- Sandra Bullock for Gravity
Click HootSuite for the rest of Social Oscars predictions
284 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 284 of 284Before you answer, think about the absurdity that we all need to see a movie.
I think Band of Brothers should be required viewing for all high-school age kids.
Lame preachy crapola.
I see your point, but Solomon' wrote his story in 1853.
You forgot Barry G.
Well, yeah maybe so but he didn't stand a chance. The times were different. And he was a hell of a lot more libertarian than was president Reagan. No way in hell Reagan would have shared Barry's drug stance, for example. And I'm sure there are at least a few others.
So wait a minute let me get this straight. The fact that Lincoln was a Republican is not "true" because he really was spiritually a Democrat. You know like Jefferson Davis or John Breckenridge or Robert E Lee.
You can't change the facts no matter how convenient it is for your argument. Lincoln was a Republican. And he wanted to send the slaves to Liberia. A fact that they love to gloss over. Just sayn'
I think we're cross-posting, R&B. Take a breath, read, and slow down.
I'm currently listening to The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass on audiobook and lamenting the fact that there's been no viable biopic of his amazing story.
Trooper: The words "Democrat", "Republican", "conservative" and "liberal" are different words. With different meanings. One does not fit with one or is as oppositional as the other. Things change over time. (Must that be repeated?) Believe it or not, ideologies actually change to fit parties and parties change to bring in different ideologies. It happens more often than some people seem to know. But rest assured, it happens. It happened even in America.
Words may change but facts do not. Lincoln was a Republican not a Democrat and to say that he was is quite simply a lie. Don't you get that? It is trying to appropriate history for a false narrative. The Democrat party of today has no claim to Abe Lincoln. No matter how you twist it he was a Republican. Period.
No way in hell Reagan would have shared Barry's drug stance, for example.
Speaking of California governors, Jerry Brown had a zinger today about pot.
I guess it bugs me a bit when people label things without even understanding or, in the case of these films, seeing them.
I suppose Dallas Buyers' Club is this year's "gay" film, although the main character is a homophobic heterosexual.
The reason the film was made probably has less to do with preachy crapola and more with the fact that it was a very interesting story.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Trooper: The words "Democrat", "Republican", "conservative" and "liberal" are different words. With different meanings.
Utter Sullivanistic redefinition of "Conservative."
When are we meeting for beers, BTW?
EMD said...
I guess it bugs me a bit when people label things without even understanding or, in the case of these films, seeing them.
I didn't see the other "Best Actress" films but I can't believe Blanchett won. I need an expert's opinion as to why.
Lincoln's main goal was to protect the Constitution even when he was violating it. To preserve and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. The exact opposite of the current Democrat occupant of the office.
You are confusing parties with ideologies. The Republican Party is not a church, dude. It's a political party. It changes its stance and operations to follow electoral success, or it dies. How does Teddy Roosevelt's behavior fit in with what Reince Priebus orders up today? Does it? Do you even know what Teddy Roosevelt's priorities were?
I know the names of political parties - then and now. Can you do the same and name what their ideologies and priorities were? Republicans were former Whigs. And rest assured, Whigs were not conservative. These are not spiritual organizations, Trooper. They're organizations for politicians. Politicians, man. Not priests. Politicians. They do what's expedient. They change. They flip flop. They do not stand for the same things for 100 years. For one, the way the issues change demands that they don't need to.
Lol. Not content with looking up Teddy Roosevelt, I GOOGLED "Teddy Roosevelt" and "progressive" and came up with this link from, of all places, The Heritage Foundation, with the caption, "Teddy Roosevelt: Progressive Crusader."
I think watching those Alamo movies has gotten you a bit more riled up about all this than you needed to be, my friend. ;-)
Lincoln was a progressive, as was the abolitionist cause. As was Teddy Roosevelt. Republicanism only became synonymous with "conservatism" when Reagan religified it.
The progressive movement didn't exist yet when Lincoln died.
I didn't see the other "Best Actress" films but I can't believe Blanchett won. I need an expert's opinion as to why.
Blanchett is a top-notch actress. But, if it were up to me, I would've given it to Dench for Philomena. I wasn't crazy about the film, but her performance was good. I think Streep fatigue ruled out her for August: Osage County.
The Supporting Actress category had almost across-the-board better performances than the Best Actress category.
@R&B: OK stop with the "Progressive" history lesson. I grew up around the legacy of the true Progressive, Robert "Laugh-alot" LaFollette, who is easily distinguishable from Teddy "Bull Moose" Roosevelt (even though my grandfather was named for the latter).
The progressive movement didn't exist yet when Lincoln died.
One could argue Abolitionism at that time was a "progressive" cause, but no, Lincoln was no real progressive.
Teddy Roosevelt called him {LaFollette} a "skunk who ought to be hanged" when he opposed the arming of American merchant ships.
I guess "Progressives" had some feuds back in the day. I hope they hung out together after hours at bars.
That's true Rev as far as movements go but what we do know is that Lincoln's party rebuilt itself from the Whigs and the Whigs stood for what they called modernization. In any event, would you say Roosevelt was wrong to have chosen representation in the Republican party? He did change, not to an as yet not progressive Democratic party but to his own party, but was one of our most successful presidents while a Republican and a well-identified progressive.
Republicanism simply didn't self-identify with totality with conservatism until more modern times. Is that wrong? Perhaps it wasn't only progressive before that, perhaps the movement was up for grabs. But the most famous and earliest (self-proclaimed) one was clearly T.R.
One could argue Abolitionism at that time was a "progressive" cause, but no, Lincoln was no real progressive
I don't think it can be argued that abolitionism was a progressive cause, no. Progressives had no interest in individual human liberty -- they were all about leveraging the state to improve Society, whether that meant sterilizing "inferior" races or what have you.
Abolition was a classical liberal cause. Progressives are the antithesis of classical liberals.
One could argue Abolitionism at that time was a "progressive" cause, but no, Lincoln was no real progressive.
It's true as far as we can figure that Lincoln had a more strategic/pragmatic view of abolition than an ideological one - his primary cause was union preservation. I don't know if that was a more progressive cause than secession - or even if those two movements figure onto any sort of a progressive-conservative spectrum. But federal unionism was clearly the less well-tested and newer cause of the two.
Maybe Blanchett won because she was reprising the role of "Blanche" in T. E. Ford's "Streetcar Named Desire".
Blanche ==> Blanchette...get it? Diminutive French endings?
Progressives are the antithesis of classical liberals.
What a baloney, self-serving statement. Progressives are liberals who simply realized that industrial society created larger, even if privatized challenges to human liberty than the agricultural society preceding it could have. Classical liberals didn't have a desire to be tyrannized by non-governmental actors any more than they did governments. It's just that corporations as powerful as Carnegie's and Rockefeller's didn't exist when Locke was around. The first modern corporation, The East India Company, was barely entering into existence then.
The invention of corporatism as a check against government is a modern, ultra-libertarian idea.
Lincoln was a Republican and Democrats were the architects and enforcers of Jim Crow in OUR LIFETIME. When I taught that to my 11th grade history students they thought I was lying and my "colleagues" got pissed. The truth is a mothererfucker sometimes Ritmo, a real mofo!
You don't get to claim people because it is a better fit for your narrative. Because if that is the case than the Republicans get JFK and Harry Truman and a bunch of other people who had what are now considered ultra conservative views but where just normal back then.
Like Russia bad. Abortion a sin. You know stuff like that.
History is not fantasy football where you can claim who you want to make your team look better.
Now excuse me while I go to my blog to post photo's of me at the Oscars.
We will pick this up again soon. Goodnight.
I know that the party going by the name "Democrat" harbored and had no problem with Dixiecrats until passage of the CRA, Nick. But that truth is no more a mofo than the truth of Lee Atwater's statement about how he got the Dixiecrats into his party. The first part I (and pretty much any Democrat today) can accept. Why can't Republicans accept the latter? Especially when it's obvious. The Dixiecrats and their vote went somewhere. You think the South went to Republicans in 1968 because all of a sudden civil rights became popular there? What nonsense!!!
What a baloney, self-serving statement. Progressives are liberals
Bzzt, wrong. Progressives are not and have never been liberals. There are good reasons why fascism, national socialism, and communism all came out of the progressive movement, and it isn't because progressives were committed to liberty.
Simply put, progressives are people who want to improve society and think the best way to accomplish that is for everyone to obey them.
Civil Rights act of 1964, LBJ's greatest achievement, was due to Republican support more than Dems. 80% of House Rep and 82% of Senate Rep. voted for the bill. Dems were only in the 60's% in both chambers. So, there's that.
It doesn't bother me if Republicans want to talk about how great JFK was for lowering taxes in a boom market, or even if they want to claim something for FDR. (Imagine that!) But I claim Lincoln as an American, and one who somehow managed to end an American institution way too many Republicans are afraid of confronting nowadays. Also, I think he was a bit less interested in the sort of "states' rights" that modern conservatives love to clamor about, but that's a different story.
Parties change, man. Have you ever thrown a party that had all the same people, throughout the night? They never left? No one new came aboard? (No, I'm not talking about your blog ;-)) But come on, to politicians and to history it's party first, principles/ideology second. Generally speaking. There are exceptions, but those are the rare guys we remember.
Ritmo, were talking history and I am not allowing you to rewrite it. History is constantly evolving, that's a fact. But, I am a student and former teacher of history and I NEVER let liberals or conservatives try and rewrite it.
There is that, Nick. But there's also the guys who then spurned LBJ's party in revenge. Where did they go? Where did Wallace's voters go? Why did Strom Thurmond become a Republican?
Why do you only want to look at one side of that story? You know the beginning, why not confront the ending? THose voters lost the Democratic party support; there's a reason it wasn't as strong as it was before. Now where do you think that support went instead?
The Southern Strategy is historical fact, Nick. Fact. The guy's engineering it are on tape. They won Reagan elections. It actually happened.
And nowhere did I say, imply, NOR DO I THINK, the Republicans took over the south because of progressive policies. Don't try that bullshit w/ me. I'm not an ideologue Ritmo, I am an independent, big time independent. I call left and right on their horseshit.
Simply put, progressives are people who want to improve society and think the best way to accomplish that is for everyone to obey them.
You should try obeying reason, first.
Oh, I'm not so sure the Southern Strategy is progressive, Sir. But Lee Atwater's strategy existed. And it was successful. Historical fact. End of story.
Your need to make this increasingly personal makes me wonder if there's something not having to do with me that you're angry about. Like the fact that these facts would exist even if I wasn't saying them.
I call left and right on their horseshit.
Then why do you get so angry about calling out the right on the Southern Strategy?
Ritmo, Please read carefully before you write. I said the Southern Strategy was NOT progressive. I am no fan of Lee Atwater. You are creating a straw man because you think you're debating a Republican. I'm not angry, I'm kicking your ass, but w/ a smile. I like you. You're just a rewriter of history and I eat folks like that "w/ some fava beans and a nice chianti." I will be happy to debate you but I won't allow you to make my points when it is not what I said. So, be intellectually honest or this is over.
Progressives didn't think that child labor as it existed 100 years ago was morally proper or that there was a good reason that a 40-hour week shouldn't be standard. But anti-progressives like Revenant want to make people believe that those are unnatural, unpopular or at least failing that, "anti-liberty" propositions. Well, at least he's sticking with the philosophical.
Product liability back then was also quite a bitch. How horrible that not poisoning people to make a buck isn't seen as freeing any more!
There is that, Nick. But there's also the guys who then spurned LBJ's party in revenge. Where did they go?
They died. It was fifty years ago.
If you want to know where they went during their lifetimes, well, let's look at the "Southern Bloc" that led opposition to the CRA: 18 Democrats and 1 Republican.
One Republican switched to be a Democrat; the other 17 stayed Democrats until the day they died.
The last of those? Honored Democrat and Ku Klux Klan recruited Robert Byrd. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi all took time to praise his greatness.
Nick, I've posted a lot just now so it's possible that some responses are getting confused as to whom they're directed. I like you too. I believe when you say you're not a fan of Lee Atwater and that you're not a Republican. Apologies if it appeared that (or if I did) attribute something to you that you didn't say or imply.
People die. Attitudes don't always go so cleanly.
You are discriminating in your listing on the basis of political longevity. The worst segregationists ultimately left politics altogether, so where is Wallace in your listing? Oh, whoops - gone. Very convenient. And pretty convenient of you to not name a state official at all - as if segregation was somehow only a policy of federal concern.
But see, I'm not talking about politicians, but about their voters and voting blocs. These things exist, even when you busy making tallies about things that don't matter.
Progressives didn't think that child labor as it existed 100 years ago was morally proper or that there was a good reason that a 40-hour week shouldn't be standard. But anti-progressives like Revenant want to make people believe that those are unnatural, unpopular or at least failing that, "anti-liberty" propositions.
The thing that always amuses me about progressives is that when they want to lay claim to a great accomplishment that improved the lives of Americans, they generally have to go back around a hundred years to do it. There's probably a clue in there somewhere.
But anyway -- yes, Ritmo, obviously it is a violation of liberty to forbid people from working and forbid other people from offering employment. That doesn't make the laws inherently bad, of course; trading liberty for other benefits is what government is all about, and aside from anarchists nobody disputes the value of SOME government.
The thing is, progressives only look at the supposed benefits, not the costs. Thus progressives endorsed race and IQ-based sterilization, segregation, mandatory "rehabilitation" of homosexuals, expanded prisons, bans on all manner of controlled substances... and so on, and so on.
Classical liberals view things in terms of human rights. Progressives view things in terms of what they think will benefit people as a collective. Very, very different things.
Apology accepted, Ritmo. I realize the rapid fire can cause talk over. No biggy, just a glitch. I think Atwater was the architect of more than the southern strategy. He is the template for soulless political operatives that now run BOTH parties. Carville is Atwater in every way except party affiliation.
Very different things and very different times. Progressivism simply took account of industrialization, while libertarians today would like to pretend that the classical liberalism of Locke was relevant to a society he wouldn't recognize today. Sure, progressives made mistakes - eugenics, etc. You have to understand that racism was the default position hundreds of years ago until very recently. So again, it's presentist fallacy to suppose that they were further behind than the society at large.
Regarding labor laws, I'm glad you recognize trade-offs - as I would also recognize a difference from what people are allowed to do versus what becomes a standard (and generally inhumane or unnatural) expectation.
Sure there are and should be a recognition of individual rights. But why should that preclude an ability to view collective effects, trends for ill or worse and what exacerbates or improves them? Should every defender of individual rights pretend that nothing happens or changes due to policy in the aggregate? Why?
People die. Attitudes don't always go so cleanly.
In the 1960s, anti-black racists at the state, local, and federal level were overwhelmingly Democrats.
Is it *possible* that a secret mass of anti-black racists still exists today? Anything's possible. But I don't feel any obligation to find a home for 'em until you actually demonstrate that they exist. The empirical evidence is that anti-black racism is a political nonstarter in the modern United States; whites don't react positively to it, and non-whites react negatively to it.
You are discriminating in your listing on the basis of political longevity.
You're the one who brought up Strom Thurmond. I simply pointed out that his compatriots all remained Democrats in good standing. If ONE racist Democrat switching to the Republicans is evidence Republicans welcomed racists -- which is the argument you attempted to make -- then the fact that seventeen more stayed with the party certainly serves as evidence that the Democrats stayed friendly to racists.
What ultimately lured southerners away from the Democrats wasn't racism, but militarism. The Democratic Party took a sharp turn to the left on military issues in the 1970s, and Southern Democrats had always been strongly pro-military. With race off the table as a significant political issue and the Democrats playing coy with the USSR on military issues, there wasn't a lot left to keep the south in the Democratic camp.
where is Wallace in your listing? Oh, whoops - gone.
Wallace "left" politics in the late 80s, still a Democrat.
pretty convenient of you to not name a state official at all - as if segregation was somehow only a policy of federal concern.
Orval Faubus, George Wallace, Bull Connor... it would save time to list the state and local enemies of black civil rights who weren't Democrats, really.
I don't have any evidence that a "secret" mass of anti-black racists but I have seen cards with watermelons on them and other sorts of behavior that's concerning. What's clear is that some people have grievances whereby they don't hate blacks so much as they fear (usually pretty irrationally) what would somehow be done to deprive them as whites. Witness Shouting Thomas.
In any event, things don't change suddenly just as surely as they don't stay around forever. Things change in stages. Racism isn't as bad as it was, but are there numbers of people who are irrationally apprehensive and fearful, as whites, of a black president? You bet. Does that also affect the political discourse? You bet.
Your theory about insufficient militarism is a novel one, but that doesn't mean it's untrue. However, it would be untrue if you assumed, on the basis of a false dichotomy, that only the Southern Strategy (documented) or another theory could be true. More than one thing can be true at the same time, though.
Wallace ultimately changed his party to American Independent, not finally, but his reversion to a farcical attempt back onto the Democratic ticket in 1972 represents what he fatuously wanted to turn them back into, not what they had become or were willing to accommodate.
You're the one who brought up Strom Thurmond. I simply pointed out that his compatriots all remained Democrats in good standing.
So changing parties is ok but changing positions is unacceptable?
Oh God, another endless, ridiculous BS session about racism.
Thank God, I wasn't here for it.
From Birth of a Nation through Gone With the Wind and onto Jezebel and Raintree County, Hollywood has produced critically acclaimed, big budget productions that sympathetically portrayed slaveowners and ignored the plight of their slaves. The past few years they've found religion and want us to admire the largeness of their souls. Horseshit. This like Krupp Armaments producing an anti war movie.
Gravity was pathetic. Hardly better than any of the Friday the 13th franchise movies in terms of drama. Yet it won 7 Academy Awards. 12 Years a Slave got only 3 Academy Awards, that has to hurt.
Great Gatsby and Frozen won 100% of their nominations. Gravity won 70% of its nominations. Dallas Buyer's Club won 50% of its nominations. 12 Years a Slave only won 33%. Talk about a show!
Out of all the winners, the only movie I saw was Gravity, and I barely got in on Saturday. I'll never get that time back.
Yet it won 7 Academy Awards.
Mostly technical.
EMD:
"The reason the film was made probably has less to do with preachy crapola and more with the fact that it was a very interesting story."
I'm never interested in films I see trailers of like the Oprah movies, the one about the guy on the slave ship (one word, began with an A), etc. But the trailer for 12 Years piqued my interest.
I've never watched movies like Beloved, Titanic, Schindler's List, etc., because I don't like downers, but this one seems different.
Turns out that the Titanic sunk - who knew?
I watched The Hindenburg with George C. Scott the other day - yet another surprise ending - sumbitch blowed up! Blowed up real good!
I took a then-gf to see King Kong - the most recent remake, and she cried when the damn dirty ape died. That was a surprise? Really? You never saw Fay Wray or whatshername in the other versions? Damn, girl, pay attention. Nothing good happens to over-sized apes in movies!
Good morning, Sixty.
Trooper
Why don't you get "hey you kids, get off my lawn" tattooed on your forehead. Because that is how you sound.
Did anyone watch the Oscar's last night?
No I did not Aridog but the Walking Dead episode was a nothing burger so maybe I should have.
Ari, no.
He doesn't post here, but, Greg Gutfeld for the win:
Interesting pre-Oscar fact: "red carpet interview" is Dutch for "shit you pour in your ears so your brain dies."
Great Gatsby was an entertaining period piece [I watched in three 40 minute increments on my exerecise bike so it was like a TV series to me- got me wondering how it would end since I did not read the book].
I have not seen any of the otehrs yet.
But I do need to look at the dresses.
I did Ari, but mainly because I didn't want to miss a "we saw your boobs" moment at the beginning. Unfortunately, no big song and dance production this year. There were several awful transitions by Ellen, like one when she asked a few guests if they'll eat a pizza with her if she ordered one. It simply was so disconnected with reality that it couldn't connect the punchline. Not all the transition were bad, and I liked the gimmick of handing out consolation prizes of Lottery scratch offs. But if I were to sum up the overall production of the Academy Awards, it would be thus: "everyone was on their best behavior".
They really need better writers for the production. The transitions were just odd. There was a whole segment about recognizing animated heroes with no sense of why it was being done. It didn't even flow into the announcement of any winners for animation. It was just a filler segment. Perhaps ABC/Disney demanded the penance?
deborah said...
But I do need to look at the dresses.
That's what Joan is for.
Hee. Yes, I thought of her, too, but I also want a wider look.
Hey AJ even old white guys can express their opinion.
I don't have a lawn. I have a stoop. And I don't let kids sit on it either.
They needed a real comedian to be the host.
Someone like Carrot Top or Gallagher.
Just think of the bit that Gallagher could do when introducing "12 Years a Slave."
It could have been epic.
I also want a wider look.
You think the dresses are making them look fat?
They needed a real comedian to be the host.
George Lopez certainly wasn't available.
I'm not an Ellen fan. However, she threw a left hook @ PC. She quipped, "There are two possibilities tonight. Twelve Years a Slave wins best picture or you're all racists." I was pleasantly surprised. Of course, Twelve Years won. It was a black or homo flick, so I guess they're all homophobes.
If they wanted it to be funny they should have used Jim Norton or even better Nick DePaolo.
The Oscars couldn't handle Chris Rock keepin' it real. He was one and done.
Zombie Johnnie Carson would be the perfect choice.
Does anyone know just how many various "award" shows there are for all of film, music, and television?
Seems like there's one every week. Kind of like awards for participating. Or something.
The documentary I watched Sunday night, a series of episodes called "D-Day in 3D" was fascinating. Some photos I've never seen before, like the aerial shots of the drop zones for the Airborne troopers from above with collapsed chutes clearly visible. What a mess...all over the place, none together by sometimes hundreds of yards, others by miles. They had to be the best of the best to get it all together and form up...no GPS, just your guts, your senses of sight and sound, and a lensatic compass for those who knew how to use them. Seeing the confusion from above gives a whole new perspective.
I doubt I would have been good enough.
"Lincoln was a progressive, as was the abolitionist cause"
That's a meaningless comparison. Conservative Christians were abolitionists, the sort that later became Fundamentalist. There was a strong link, for instance, between Holiness movements and abolition. Such as the Wesleyan Churchsplit from the Methodist Church. My alma mater, a very conservative Christian college was established on abolitionist goals.
There's a much more consistent comparison between anti-abortion activists and abolitionists.
Progressive almost always identify as being for abortion rights. Similar argument. The individual has absolute rights in the context of someone who is not identified as fully human.
What traditions were "conservative Christian" abolitionists looking to uphold and preserve? What ways and customs of long-upheld lifestyles had gotten rid of slavery on moral grounds? Which biblical injunctions railed against slaveholding? In what part of the Roman and classical worlds was it enlightened to be anti-slavery?
ALthough I've been supposedly controversial enough last night, I should also note that forsaking neurobiology in defining zygotes as human beings is hugely problematic. Oh well, at least this moves us into more vigorously debated grounds. On that note, the supposed "ensoulment" of a fertilized egg is intellectually convenient to those wanting to preserve theological doctrine, but it simply attempts to over-simplistically settle a question that can't be settled that easily. Did you know that some fetuses devour their twin in utero? No funerals are held, no one knows about it. It's probably not that violent an occurrence. Sometimes a fetus merges incompletely with its twin, causing not a siamese/conjoined birth, but a fetus with an extra leg growing out of its lower extremities, as that's the only part its sibling that didn't fuse and become engulfed into its own body. And so on and so on and so on.
Secular if not theological moral consensus has settled on the vegetative state as not fitting the definition of preserved life - probably because most people recognize that human life is only "special" if our nature of sentience is appreciated. To that end, praying for the souls of things in petri dishes (or their biological equivalents) sounds like a strange course for pursuing moral advancement, but I could compromise with you on that if you'd do the logical thing and grant other animals such rights, also. After all, the theological fetishization of irrelevant biological attributes shouldn't come free. It has consequences that you might not anticipate, but that I would welcome.
That's what comes from rejecting the role of cruelty in defining moral behavior. Or if you disagree and rightfully think that cruelty is a crucial part of defining moral transgression, please explain how it's possible to be cruel to things that lack sentience.
Carson was the best host, hands down.
Johnny Carson freed the slaves.
Well at least Nispey Russell and Lola Falana.
And Aunt Esther.
Can't forget Aunt Esther.
Post a Comment