the "trust" destroyed by lying is expectation of *loyalty*. see The World's posts on that subject...

(alternatively, if the lying was immoral, it can also just be the person noticing you're acting badly, as with anything else immoral you might do)

thus "don't lie, it destroys trust" is lame

no editing. that's a feature. really!

Invisceo (6:28:11 PM): totally disagree
curi42 (6:28:34 PM): w/
Invisceo (6:28:42 PM): the reason most disney (live action) movies are uninteresting is cause there's very little content
curi42 (6:29:07 PM): they have about as much content as other movies
Invisceo (6:29:40 PM): take your cell phone rockstar movie: compare that to like the Lion King, where the runaway Lion has to do the morally responsible think and overthrow the hyenas in a violent battle to restore the circle of life
Invisceo (6:29:45 PM): i'll watch the lion king any day
Invisceo (6:30:08 PM): pedestrianism in films is a very bad phenomenon; people like to see big, epic things resolved cuz big, epic things are the most important kind of thing
curi42 (6:30:09 PM): ummm
Invisceo (6:30:30 PM): i might be misremembering lion king its been a while
Invisceo (6:30:44 PM): but i do remember some business about evil hyenas and the lion running away
Invisceo (6:30:50 PM): heh
curi42 (6:30:54 PM): lion king has song and dance, light plot, light combat
Invisceo (6:31:01 PM): sure
Invisceo (6:31:20 PM): but it still has way way more content then your cell phone movie (i'm betting, i haven't seen it but i am going by your description)
curi42 (6:31:33 PM): how are you determining this?
Invisceo (6:32:08 PM): because there's important stuff that actually gets resolved through dramatic action on the part of the protagonists
curi42 (6:32:20 PM): as to big epic things being more interesting -- one of the great things about winnign the war on terrorism, and any subsequent wars, and being done w/ them, is we won't have to think about such things if we don't want to. they only
curi42 (6:32:42 PM): seem interesting b/c today they are a necessary part of our life, and to cope w/ that many of us come to like them
curi42 (6:32:52 PM): but even so, day to day life is still a larger part of our life
curi42 (6:32:59 PM): but, oddly, the part most ppl are worst at
Invisceo (6:33:59 PM): people will still write war novels and play war games and see war movies etc long after the last rifle is put down; the analysis and simulation of conflict is a useful and interesting part of our culture
curi42 (6:34:14 PM): the last rifles hasn't even been put down
curi42 (6:34:18 PM): ever
curi42 (6:34:45 PM): one day it will be a great hobby for some people, and unknown to most
curi42 (6:35:04 PM): (unless b/c of enhanced brains we all have a billion hobbies)
Invisceo (6:35:07 PM): i doubt that
Invisceo (6:35:15 PM): our very history is defined by our wars
curi42 (6:35:23 PM): yeah but our future won't be
Invisceo (6:36:06 PM): any student of our history will have to have lots of war knowledge to be insightful though
Invisceo (6:36:26 PM): the causes of and occurences during and aftereffects following wars are just too important a part of history to be ignored
curi42 (6:36:41 PM): they won't be forever
curi42 (6:37:00 PM): and regardless, how to live day to day is a bigger part of our lives even now
Invisceo (6:38:00 PM): the fact that most people suck at day to day stuff has nothing to do with our culture's fascinating with struggle though
curi42 (6:38:13 PM): it's fine to be interested in struggle (today)
curi42 (6:38:30 PM): but it shouldn't be totally dominant
Invisceo (6:39:24 PM): well its not
curi42 (6:39:48 PM): name 3 movies targetted at adults not full of strife
Invisceo (6:39:56 PM): there's plenty of comedies and light hearted romances etc etc in our cinema culture
Invisceo (6:40:06 PM): any comedy or romantic comedy
Invisceo (6:40:22 PM): unless you're using a ridiculously overbroad definition of strife
curi42 (6:40:28 PM): ok fine. 3 *serious* movies not.
curi42 (6:40:29 PM): ..
Invisceo (6:40:32 PM): heh
Invisceo (6:40:42 PM): well erm
Invisceo (6:41:06 PM): dude
Invisceo (6:41:19 PM): if a movie is serious its dealing with some serious issue or topic, right?
Invisceo (6:41:34 PM): almost certainly involving a clash of moral theories
curi42 (6:41:36 PM): *shrug* just not a humour or unrealistic plot
Invisceo (6:41:56 PM): it sounds like you want me to name a serious movie without moral content
Invisceo (6:42:03 PM): i dunno of any
Invisceo (6:42:27 PM): strife and conflict can be wonderfully uplifting and inspiring dude
curi42 (6:42:34 PM): you can have moral theories clash w/out any violence or any sadness
Invisceo (6:42:50 PM): like there's this moment in Schindler's List where Ben Kingsley holds the list and goes "The List is Life!"
Invisceo (6:42:55 PM): that just about made me cry
Invisceo (6:43:58 PM): well i mean you can have them clash without any violence or any sadness
curi42 (6:44:00 PM): schindler's list is about what to do when you're a victim, right?
Invisceo (6:44:07 PM): but who wants to like watch you and me argue? nazis getting fried is way cooler ^_^
Invisceo (6:44:43 PM): its about a man who did just about the most moral possible thing under the most difficult circumstances that have ever existed on earth
curi42 (6:44:47 PM): almost all movies about what to do, meant for adults, are when you're a victim. most of the rest are what to do when you want to marry someone.
curi42 (6:45:06 PM): difficult circumstances make what to do clearer!
curi42 (6:45:16 PM): it's harder to figure out what to do when there is no pressing problem!
Invisceo (6:45:52 PM): the point of the movie was that a man who wasn't really what you'd call a morally pious man winds up doing this awesome and wonderful thing
Invisceo (6:46:11 PM): how you can not see the value in that is...confusing
curi42 (6:46:31 PM): i'm not saying ur kinda movie is value-less
Invisceo (6:46:37 PM): mmm
curi42 (6:46:45 PM): i'm saying it's not super godly
Invisceo (6:47:04 PM): lol
curi42 (6:47:08 PM): my type should exist, and be at least somewhat popular, if not the most popular kinda movie
Invisceo (6:47:26 PM): well i mean
curi42 (6:47:39 PM): if you think the disney cellphone movie is boring, b/c the stuff they do is not interesting enough... well can you tell me what they were supposed to do instead? i think that disney's answers to waht they should do are some of the
curi42 (6:47:59 PM): best that exist. and that there should be effort put into finding better ones
Invisceo (6:48:02 PM): i'm not saying they did the wrong thing curi
Invisceo (6:48:11 PM): i'm saying i'm not interested in the movie's *premise*, its *problem*
curi42 (6:48:12 PM): and that seeing the best we have should interest everyone interested in progress
Invisceo (6:48:17 PM): i don't give a damn what girls meet what rock stars
Invisceo (6:49:23 PM): show me George C Scott chomping on a cigar and turning the nazi divisions around, or Jim Carrey shaking his fist at a god like paternal oligarch on his flimsy sailboat though, and you've grabbed me
curi42 (6:49:33 PM): watch it as one of the rare examples of a movie that gives an open-ended situation, not defined by some pressing problem, then shows people acting well to succeed
Invisceo (6:49:44 PM): mmm
Invisceo (6:49:54 PM): well
Invisceo (6:49:56 PM): i'm thinking
Invisceo (6:50:29 PM): what's primary in my kinda movie isn't always so much the moral action but the cleverness and dedication with which the action is pursued
Invisceo (6:50:43 PM): like "man that was a brilliant strategy" or "jeez this dude really stuck it out against all odds" etc
Invisceo (6:50:56 PM): admiring competence is important too
curi42 (6:51:20 PM): how to fight better is fine, but there ought to be a growing desire here to move past that and start living well in freedom too
Invisceo (6:52:29 PM): i liked lost in translation
curi42 (6:52:41 PM): me2
curi42 (6:53:07 PM): i mentioned it in comments as one of the best movies of my type, but it's still hugely lacking
Invisceo (6:53:13 PM): heh
Invisceo (6:53:14 PM): yeah i saw
curi42 (6:53:27 PM): and is also romance themed
Invisceo (6:53:27 PM): bill murray is hysterical in it too
Invisceo (6:53:40 PM): the romance was fairly underplayed though
Invisceo (6:53:47 PM): by Hollywood standards
Invisceo (6:54:11 PM): hey if you ever want to post us discussing movies to your website feel free
Invisceo (6:54:16 PM): ;)

taco bell has a sign on the wall saying if ur unhappy about ur service, or don't love the food, you can have a refund or replacement, your call.

borders let someone return a book with no receipt two years after purchase.

why does this not happen w/ a command economy? under capitalism, making customers happy helps win business from competitors. under a command economy, there are no competitors, so there's no reason to do it. and also, it's wealth redistribution (those who ask for more, get more) by some method other than the commander's Grand Plan, so philosophically an anathema to socialists.

Just watched Stuck In The Suburbs. Typical Disney movie. Simple plot, happy ending. Upbeat themes. Kind to children. Some moral themes that they get about right. Happy people succeeding. Good music.

To describe the same movie from a more typical adult perspective, and also the perspective of younger people who want to be/act grown-up, which is most teens: the movie had an absurd plot where some silly teen girls get a rock star's cellphone, find out his secrets, and become friends with him. The plot was obvious from way out, the villains were retarded and incompetent, and there wasn't really any point to the movie. Yay, they met a rock star, so what? Who cares about that? There was no action.

And so it is that most movies feature conflict, strife, and tension. Unhappy people and serious problems. Without these most people get bored. But they are missing something major: sure, if something bad happens to you, it's important to confront and solve it. But most of life is not like that. You don't have to first become a victim to succeed. A good life mostly consists of just what Disney movies show: people with no particular problems succeeding at something that, though generally not very "important", they enjoy. (Or at least, the problems most people have don't pervade their life, they're just subject-specific.)

What to do when you're *not* a victim is a far more interesting and common problem than how to fight. And it's a lot harder to write about, so few people even try.

Try to think of a movie where some *parents* just have a nice time. It's not so easy. Even something like City Slickers, they all had serious problems. They were basically trying to deal with mid-life crises.

Or think about how many love stories don't make it look like the couple is about to breakup forever a couple times before the end? Or think about why love stories almost always end when the couple gets together.

When you cook a steak, the blood that drips out is yummy. some people call it juice, but i think it's more enjoyable when you drop the euphemism.

Steak at $2.50 / lb. is a miracle of capitalism.

I previously wrote: lefties think the reason that capitalism creates wealth is that people are inherently greedy (which is why in socialism (aka 100% taxes) people wouldn't all want to do their share). this is how they get the idea that socialism is the right idea, but we need a little bit of capitalism to better make stuff. (ie, to better harness people's greed)

To add to that, it's no wonder many lefties think this when right-wingers still think it too!

A friend told me this realisation, that many pro-capitalism folks concede socialism's moral case, and argue on pragmatic grounds, is why Ayn Rand became a writer (to make said moral case for capitalism). Kinda makes me wanna read her.

Under socialism, aka a Command Economy, people don't control what they make. Rather, it's taken from them, and given to a few leaders for redistribution. Everyone is then given wealth as the leaders deem fit. The moral case against this goes something like: MY FUCKING GOD, WHO WOULD WANT TO GIVE ALL HIS STUFF AWAY AND LET SOMEONE ELSE RULE HIS LIFE?

Under capitalism, aka Let It Be economics, when you make something, you own it, to do with as you see fit. Whatever you create is yours, whatever someone else creates is not yours. Thus everyone is respected as individuals competent to make their own decisions with their stuff. There are no rulers. The moral case for this goes something like: D00D, YOU GET TO BE FREE!

when you buy perishable food, you sometimes won't be in the mood to eat it before it goes bad.

when you serve yourself a plate of food, you will sometimes put too little on the plate and get seconds. so too will you sometimes put on too much and throw the excess out.

when you cook, sometimes you will mess up, and the food will turn out gross.

some food you buy just won't be very good quality (like some fruit that turns out mushy or not sweet)

sometimes you won't read the labels closely enough, and will buy the wrong food by accident

sometimes you will make food for someone else, but because of miscommunication it won't be wanted.

sometimes you will start to cook some food, then change your mind about what you want to eat.

when you buy more than a bite of something new, you may not like it, and would thus throw most of it out.

the error rate on all these things goes down with skill. thus younger people, esp young children, tend to have a higher rate of throwing food out.

this is all to be expected. you shouldn't be upset in the slightest if 10% of the food you buy isn't eaten. more if you are young, or have young children, or have many children.

and none of these things qualify as "wasting" food.

insurance is the exact opposite of gambling, and vice versa

most people think the primary thing about gambling is that overall the casino takes a little of your money. this is true, but not primary.

insurance companies also take a little of your money. but that's ok. insurance is great anyway. most services charge you, so we can't judge gambling that simply.

what insurance does is take a little money from you most of the time (in most universes), but give you a bunch now and then (in a few universes) when (where) you need it most b/c disaster struck. this is great, because it allows you to have a higher minimum quality of life, which is worth the fee, and worth somewhat lowering your max quality of life.

gambling, on the other hand, takes money from you most of the time (in most universes), and gives a large pay out rarely (in a few universes). the basic effect is to make most of your life worse (most universes), but create a few spikes of huge wealth (in a few universes). this is the exact opposite effect that insurance had. this raises the maximum qualify of life you may experience, but at a cost to the minimum.

BTW this mostly applies to gambling that's either high-stakes that you only do a couple times, or to stuff with a very low chance of payout (lottery, maybe slots too, not sure). if you were placing lots of small bets at 49% odds, the effect of gambling would be very minimal, as your luck would almost always average out even within a single gambling session. (so all you'd really be doing is paying the fee to not do much of anything)