From the "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" file, it looks like Singerman producer Jon Peters has gotten himself into some hot water. The same guy who wanted to put giant spiders, polar bear guards, and gay robots into a Superman film has apparently added sexual harassment to his list of transgressions...again.According to multiple sources, a woman claims in a lawsuit that Peters sexually harassed her and exposed himself to her and her 3-year-old daughter while she worked as his personal assistant.
"Shelly Morita began working for the producer in February 2005 but quit after about a year, the suit said.Nice guy. Just the type of individual you want working for your company. And guess what? This isn't the first time this has happened while he was in WB's employ. In 1998, Colleen Bennett, Peter's former executive vice president of finance, filed suit, alleging that Peters groped her, exposed himself to her and conducted meetings in his underwear. If guys like this are allowed to stick around WB Features, it really explains a lot how management there conducts business and why we get the Catwoman's and Singerman's that we do.
According to the lawsuit, Peters frequently grabbed Morita's breasts, buttocks or legs, hugged and kissed her and made "rude, sexual and disparaging comments."
During filming of "Superman Returns" in Australia in July 2005, Peters crawled into her hotel room bed and refused to leave, the suit alleged.
Morita also claims that in August 2005, while working in Peters' home, she walked in on him as he was naked and waiting to get a massage. The suit claims Peters chased her and gave her a bear hug.
The suit also claims that last December, while on a trip to Peters' ranch in Santa Barbara, Peters exposed himself to Morita and her daughter, commenting, "Look what boys have!"
He later joked about it to other employees at the ranch, the suit claimed."
84 comments:
Peters has always been a wackjob in hollywood. Truth be told though most of these producers and directors are really weird and have all sorts of odd behaviors.
That's true Tim Burton is supposedly border line insane.
You would be shocked if you knew just how nuts some of these people are.
odd behavior is one thing. Sexual harassment of a child no less is quite another...
"odd behavior is one thing. Sexual harassment of a child no less is quite another..."
I agree i am just saying most of these directors and producer types are out of their fucking minds in Hollywood.
We alwasy knew Peters didn't know what the hell he was doing with superman. It was Singer that was the real surprise. Oh well, a restart will come some day. It's just a matter of time.
How unfortunate it is that superman is in the hands of this clown...
Well I watched a bootleg of this superman movie today since it's been the impetous of such a tempestuos fanboy war online...
and...
it was ok. Not something I want to see again. What I'd call it is a jack of all trades but master of none.
Take from that what you will.
In next superman Bizarro and him become lovers as he fights with both his sexuality and raising his boy. In the big action sequence him and bizzaro revealed there true feelings as they both lift up a building. So touching.......
hahahaha. Bizarro am not funny.
-cgeer15
Yeah with such touching dialog as:
Biz:Superman why you touch me in bad way?
Super:Does that mean it feels good?
Biz:No me kill you now!
Yes, and then a battle with them shooting sperm all over the city impregnating amnexiacs.
Sorry, but I'm gonna come away from the Producer battle for a sec and post a comment on the movie itself:
Haha, what's really funny about all of this is the inept storytelling. Think about it... Superman left Earth why? To try and find out if he has some connection and a "family" with a bunch of aliens that he has never met. He's also seeking the approval and love of someone he's never met, so he can feel appreciated and like he has a "family". But guess what the planet Earth is? An ENTIRE PLANET full of people that already love him! And a family? He's got Ma Kent(who REALLY doesn't make him feel like an alien- in fact, she knocks him down a post when his ego gets too big), he's got Perry, Jimmy, LOIS... and let's see... the PLANET EARTH! He's searching for love and acceptence when guess what? Everyone already loves and accepts him! So he leaves. What's he trying to say? That our love and admiration isn't good enough? That he can't even say goodbye, but instead thinks of us as nothing but a bunch of ants in an antfarm? This is how much Superman CARES about us? That he can abbandon us at his leisure like we are some collection of "sea monkeys?" Do YOU just up and leave your family for years without saying anything? I guarantee you something... when you get back home and clean up some spilled milk, no one is going to cheer for you. They will probably all be pissed that you came back at all, if not crying and confused. So Superman left to have a family? When humanity is the only "family" he has ever known? Nice move Supes.
But it's okay... there's a Super-kid(tm.) to give this story a literal meaning. Now he doesn't have to feel so bad about being the strongest man in the world, and being able to fly, and having everyone in the WORLD love him and smile just becasue they saw him... no, now he can finally feel accepted because he has a KID who can look up to him! Singer, are you serious with this? You really don't understand Superman if you think you can get away with this stuff. It's malicious character degradation of the greatest character of all time to say that he resents humanity. Aww, how cute, now Krypton can live on in his son. Sorry, he's the "Last Son of Krypton" for a reason you dingus.
-cgeer15
Hey, hey, hey. You just don't "get" what BS was trying to do.
See, HE felt "alienated", and has "issues" with his birth family (and I am 100% POSITIVE BS would give up his millions of dollars and drug habit in an INSTANT to "find" his "home planet"), so it makes sense he would "project" them onto a character like Superman. Why not? Not like ANYONE cares about this important piece of American Pop Culture, who has been around for going on 70 years. Just change him to the core, and it will make "Billions!!". Give him a weak, emo-type suit, make him a creepy, whiney bitch who squeals "I'm still Superman" while getting his face kicked in. Why throw a punch when you can say your own name?
And the kid. What an outstanding, imaginative idea THAT was! Let's not explain how an alien and a human could conceive a child together. No sir. Hell, let's not even address WHEN they slept together in the first place! Let's just throw him out there so someone, some day, can make "Son of Superman" cartoons and movies! Brilliant!
In short, BS is the "WRONG!!" choice for a character like Superman. He OBVIOUSLY made this movie for himself, and for himself ONLY. And he has BAAAAAD taste.
you obviously have no idea what it's like to be an orphan or adopted and have that need to find out about your roots. Superman can have the love of everyone on Earth, but if someone says that they found Krypton then he would feel an uncontrollabe urge to see for himself.
The kid was a bad idea, but unless you are adopted and an orphan you have no idea what that feels like.
I'm adopted and never had any desire to meet my birth parents. My "roots" are where I grew up, not who my biological parents are. Meeting the two people who merely combined DNA to create me, wouldnt change anything in my life. And I sure as hell wouldnt go on a quest to find them for 5 years without telling anyone in my family I was leaving. Espceially if I had what amounted to a video tape that showed my bio parents biting the big one.
Hahaha. It's so true. We can make excuses about Superman wanting to find his "roots" all we want. But I very much doubt that Superman would leave unless he was absolutely SURE Krypton would be there.
Firstly, seeing a planet from Earth means nothing. It means that the Planet DID exist however many years in the PAST that the object is in lightyears from Earth. And I'd say that Krypton was at least in Alpha Centauri, which is at least 4.35 ligthyears away, and that is the closest solar system to our own. Which means, that when we look at Alpha Centauri it exists 4.35 years in the past. Something, however (maybe it's the FIVE or so WORMHOLES) that Superman's rocket passes through in the opening sequence, tells me that Krypton must be much further... remember that Jor-El said that Krypton would have been "dead for THOUSANDS of years" by the time that Kal-El got to Earth! Wheww.. that's a long way! No wonder it takes two and a half years of wormhole travel! Of course, Superman wouldn't know this... but he WOULD know how far away Krypton was. If we go by the Singerboy rationale I've read on the net, then Superman's new and improved SUV-sized ship was made in the Fortress using this ellusive Kryptonian technology everyone keeps talking about that we never see. But here's a kicker... if the Fortress made the ship, and has the navigational coordinates, and mathematical trajectories inside, (not to mention the fact that the Fortress has all of the Knowledge of the Known Universe) then Superman knows exactly how far away Krypton is, how long he'll be gone, and exactly where it supposedly is. So he will also know how far in the past he will have to be travelling for the chance that Krypton is there, which could be anywhere from (lets be literal and say-)35 years up to thousands of years!
What else? Oh yeah! If his father, the greatest scientist in the Universe, a man who has perfected worm-hole travel, and has compiled all of the knowledge in the KNOWN UNIVERSE into ONE crystal on Superman's ship says that Krypton has been dead for thousands of years by the time he gets to Earth (which means he has to travel for thousands MORE to get back there), then what exactly is Superman expecting to find when he gets there? His parents WONT be alive. Maybe NO ONE WILL... maybe it will be an, I don't know "Graveyard." Or maybe these wormholes will reverse space-time... apparently Superman can do that just by flying so...
But there's the most glaring problem here. And it has to do with a fundemental aspect of heroism- and that's RESPONSIBILITY. If Superman knows he's leaving Earth for five years, then he knows he's also exposing the Earth to any threat that he might be able to prevent... like God forbid, a giant Kryptonite Continent crashing down onto Earth and causing massive floods which will destroy the planet but create top-notch real estate for anyone who uses black seaweed as currency. Superman would never WILLINGLY expose the people of Earth to harm. And so this movie fails from the very PREMISE, to understand what makes Big Blue tick.
-cgeer15
"you obviously have no idea what it's like to be an orphan or adopted and have that need to find out about your roots. Superman can have the love of everyone on Earth, but if someone says that they found Krypton then he would feel an uncontrollabe urge to see for himself.
The kid was a bad idea, but unless you are adopted and an orphan you have no idea what that feels like."
Oh, so you are saying this film was made for BS AND "adpoted people" ONLY, then? Not just BS? Give me a friggin' break.
Sorry, what makes Superman a favorite WORLDWIDE is not him being "adopted". It's him being SUPER.
Guess which one BS dropped the ball in portraying?
Only Chicks want to know who there adopted parents are. Us real mean are not emo junkies that cry when we see a former lover on the verge of marriage.
Wow, everyone notice how quiet the Apologists got once this "film" flopped on DVD too? Now they are trying to claim Singerman has "outsold X3 in it's first 2 weeks" as a benchmark. And what makes it absolutely PATHETIC is, they have ZERO proof of this!
Goes to show, you have to be a brain-dead queef to like this garbage.
I'm not really happy superman is failing except in the sense of WB hopefully realizing that they took a wrong turn by rehashing an old film and throwing in superboy, but I must say that I do like seeing some of the most pugnacious apologists who try to force their views on us Comic loyalists be met point blank with the facts about this film's undeniable dissapointment for WB and many fans.
In other words, the big Wb fumbled the ball when they had a clear path to the endzone and that's just the way it is with this movie. Even apologists know this even if they don't say it. Everyone knows wb, peters, singer, all involved made some mistakes. The only question left is "what next?"
"The only question left is "what next?" "
You'll find out in the sequel.
Superboy Forever? Actually I'm simply not interested in further singer superman films if wb does plan to burn more money...
LOL, well I've personally had enough of the Singerman and Superboy adventures. Though I still say if some people are still dazzled by the fx and advertisements and supposed depth to the blunt christ comparisons, and are foolishly believing Singer will, whatever he said, go all wrath of khan or whatever and actually makes a movie that doesn't suck, well that's perfectly fine.
I can't personally see the wrath of khan idea coming to fuition, other than if he actually inserted khan in the story, without a new director coming onboard or any way to clean up singer's mess with a direct continuation of what we Comic Loyalists call SUPERBOY BEGINS.
Don't even worry about it. Despite what the "Apologists" WANT to think, BS will NOT be back.
Just watch, when it comes time to make a new movie, BS will "drop out", more than likely saying it was "scheduling conflicts". Definition? WB don't want him back.
"Just watch, when it comes time to make a new movie, BS will "drop out", more than likely saying it was "scheduling conflicts". Definition? WB don't want him back."
I doubt it love him or hate him Singer is clearly committed to the project. I don't see WB hiring someone else because they will have to go off of Singer's story for the sequel anyway. I thought SR was good not great could have been better. However Singer has been doing all sorts of pub with BR even showing up at the Donner Cut premiere and fielded questions about SR and the sequel after the movie was over. He has supposedly been approached about the Wolverine movie but Hugh Jackman said he doubts Singer will do it because of Superman comittments for 2009.
And ang lee was commited to hulk 2, burton to superman. Hey I get what you're saying but it's all recycled material. Whoever's in charge at WB will make the final decisions regarding whether to throw away more money or not.
"And ang lee was commited to hulk 2, burton to superman. Hey I get what you're saying but it's all recycled material. Whoever's in charge at WB will make the final decisions regarding whether to throw away more money or not"
I actually have high hopes for the sequel. The parts i did not like in SR was more about character introductions. Now that is out of the way and hopefully with more action it will be a better all around movie.
Ang Lee was tied to the Hulk 2 but the Hulk really flopped bad, it did not even crack 150 domestic.
"I actually have high hopes for the sequel. The parts i did not like in SR was more about character introductions. Now that is out of the way and hopefully with more action it will be a better all around movie."
I haven't seen returns in a long long time so I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm just saying you're singing an old song about directors commited to projects. It's happened many times before. Whether or not Jesusman returns again, heh, we have to wait and see.
As for me, I agree with whoever said WB would be wise to drop singer and end this debacle to hopefully start over
And you up there randomly mentioning hulk's box office, nice try. Anyway as I saw things years ago after hulk did so so, there was very similar talk of ang going all crouching hulk, hidden khan on a sequ3l. You figure out the rest.
Big difference is that Ang Lee was never commissioned to write a script for the sequel. And as soon as the news of a possible sequel was announced, they immediately announced they were going in another direction.
WB's has commissioned Singer and announced that commission so they will lose a lot more face if they back out..
It looks like Singer will still have creative control, i mean he is a big name director so that is usually how it goes. I am sure WB will just be on him that this budget stays under 200 mil this time.
keep telling yourself that.
What it really looks like is WB will be seriously re-evaluating its plans for this vague sequel bullshit.
"What it really looks like is WB will be seriously re-evaluating its plans for this vague sequel bullshit"
Really? Care to enlighten us as to where you got this information? Or are you just talking out of your fucking ass?
Yes really. WB has only themselves to blame if they can't learn from its mistakes in the past.
Singer - "I want more money to show a CGI superman tear!"
WB - "ha your budget is only 150M"
Singer - "then I will leave the project"
WB- "theres the door"
The ammount of directors attached to sequels the list goes on and on. Spielburg was going to do howard the duck 2. And superman returns made less the the hulk if if you dont count IMAX(to make it fair since hulk was not released in IMAX format) and inflation. The hulk made more. So No SINGERMAN SEQUEL FOR YOU.
hopefully jon peters will be taken off the project with the current scandal and BS will have no one backing him to direct the next installment.
WB have to be on message boards trying to find out feedback and they must be coming across all this negativity. they just need to act.
there is no doubt that the next film will do worse than this one. people saw SR out of curiousity and were disappointed. they wont go back for more.
there is no doubt that the next film will do worse than this one. people saw SR out of curiousity and were disappointed. they wont go back for more.
Actually, the fandom that hates the film won't go back for more..The general public? Will, if they get a kick ass trailer that shows superman kicking ass and taking names.
And for all those that want a reboot, if the general public won't go back for something they know and generally liked(just not loved) then they are not going to go back for a completely different take real soon. Even if Singer leaves and they shelve Superman, you have at least 10 yrs before you can make another one without the memory of this one influencing the audience.
As much as we rag and nitpick the movie, the general publics main complaint was not enough action..Even though it pains any of you guys to admit it, give them an action packed Superman kicking ass movie and they will go see it. It probably will never reach Spiderman level popularity, but that may be impossible for any comic book movie to do right now. I think however, that it is more than set up to match XMEN's theatrical takes, which if they get the budget under control is more than enough to consider the franchise a success.
You are a fool above poster.
Have you never seen Justice League?!?!?
Its not just action its plot moron! This is why spiderman kick ass and why superman fails. Who wants to see superman with an out of wedlock son not dating the WOMAN HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE WITH???
Get with the times if they showed spiderman fight off acholism and 45 no one would go see the movie how ever much action was in it!
I win with this statement Posiden - Action Pacted - No Plot failure at box offfice and that was this year.
"I win with this statement Posiden - Action Pacted - No Plot failure at box offfice and that was this year. "
What are you 12? You win? I didn't realise I was in competition for giving my opinion. I gave my opinion you gave yours.
Let me say this nice and slow so you can comprehend...
THE. SINGLE. BIGGEST. COMPLAINT. WITH. THE. GENERAL. AUDIENCE. WAS. NOT. ENOUGH. ACTION!!!!! The single biggest complaint with the fanboys was the kid. That's a big difference, because fanboys don't really impact the BO. I'm one of those fanboys mind you, and even I can admit that what we want to see isn't really what the General Audience wants to see. Explain to me how a movie that really had no plot, but had tons of action and popular character crushed every single film released this year at the BO? It wasn't because it was a plot driven movie. It was because there was a shit load of action.
My point is that Joe Schmo fan doesn't care all that much about Superman having a kid..what they want from a movie is to have a good time. Superman Returns didn't give them that action packed good time. I guarantee you if SR had been a crapload of action and still had the kid storyline, it would have made more money.
I'm not saying what you believe is wrong, all I'm saying that if you divorce yourself from your hatred of the movie and look at it from the general publics POV, you will understand what I'm talking about.
We understand perfectly because WE ARE THE PUBLIC.
WE thought the movie was too derivitave.
WE thought superboy was a bad idea.
WE thought the emo-superman thing was stupid.
WE thought Singer doesn't know how to be subtle and just bashes us over the head with his jesus analogy stick.
So please shut up about the public being this totally seperate world full of people who think totally different from those of us who didn't like Singer's superman. It's just stupid.
Oh and you want to throw out the "general public just doesn't care as much as us" card then I'm sure that's why the movie didn't do as well as expected and also why making a "love letter" to donner wasnt necessary, on top of that, why studios ought to realize they can't get away with focusing more on rehashing an old film than adapting the comic like they're supposed.
If the GP doesn't care, then there's no reason not to boot singer out and have someone new restart from scratch.
If the GP doesn't care, then there's no reason to continue this vague sequel history twighlight zone twisted version of donner's film.
It can be twisted and spinned around in millions of ways I can think of if you want to go with the reasoning behind why WB has no choice but to do more Singerman adventures. Simply because the GP doesn't care like we do about staying true to source material etc... or even just making a good sequel that isn't half assed like returns. Reverse that and you'll see that in fact by that reasoning, they don't.
You fanboys need to get off this kid thing in SR. The above poster is right about fanboys versus the Gen public. Of the people i know that liked SR they never mentioned the kid and the ones that did not like it they never mentioned the kid either. Of the reviewers that did not like it, there was rarely a mention of the kid, they mainly talked about the lack of action. Superman having a kid is not the end of the world. You fanboys just love to bitch about anything that is not exactly the same as the comic books.
Fanboys, general public, who cares without IMAX the movie was a failure. More action with shitty acting and shitty plot will not save a movie. General Public saying it needs more "action" is saying that the democrats lost the 2004 election because of "values" IE it goes further then more action. You are simplfying the problem. The movie sucked shit....I win again.
Win again we have never spoke before so what are you babbling about. Anyone who claims victory themselves in an argument must have self esteem issues. I-Max is a format that is getting bigger and bigger so that is not a valid excuse. By 2009 tons of big effects movies will be in that format, you can't just dismiss those totals. Especially since both Ant Bully and Open Season did not fair well on the I-Max, proving that you can't just put any piece of crap up there in I-Max and expect it to make money.
Get a clue. The movie was a jelly donut with no filling,and that's the damn truth. No amount of cgi fx will change that if they give this Donner Dork another shot. Stop being a blockhead for once and give WB more credit than thinking they'll just jump in blindly and repeat their mistakes like friggin idiots. This blog doesn't want them too and I goddam agree that WB should put its thinking cap on and not listen to the bunch of sycophantic, complacent and shit eating singerboys who've never read a comic in their short lives.
Oh and when I grow up, I'm going to be there when my kid is born.
Isn't it funny how, when the bright people who see what a piece of shit this "film" is bring up reactions from people they know it "doesn't matter", that "you can't judge EVERYONE'S reaction based on the few people you know". But when it suits THEM, they say "Well EVERYONE I know didn't mention the kid", so then it's a non-issue. What?
And the lack of action in this turd is FAR from the ONLY thing that bugged people. Why didn't Milla Jovovich's movie Ultraviolet do bofo numbers at the BO then? It was ONLY action. Oh yeah, that's right! The general movie-going public is SMARTER than your average "Apologist".
Agreed. The loser brings up "Ant bully" and "open Seasons" as why Superman was good. He is a fool. People got to IMAX to be thrilled with senary and views not CGI junk. Just to prove I win again if you look at the IMAX totals "Everest" ranks up there with them. If you took away the crappy CGI flying superman the movie would have made zilch.
I win again.
Oh and superman returns sucks and singer is gay!
We're all a little gay on the inside, I think. Just look at how football players like to pat each other on the buttox. I'm almost sure if you or I were to go to jail, we'd probably be the gayest of all the inmates after a few weeks. People's sexual orientations are rather fickle in the end. I think perhaps its all a matter of choice than genetic trait, but I'm not ruling that out.
Hey I dont mind fudge packers I have had a few gay friends both men and women. My last girlfriend ws bisexual....mmmmm but I digress. I have no want to "catch" or "pitch", but when you approach sexuality as an identifying characteristic be prepared for ridicule like fat people hell like everyone else.
There's never a need to ridicule any person for any "identifying characteristic," I feel. We are all allowed to display pride in who we are as individuals or groups without fear of harassment, prejudice, bigotry if in fact we are a civilized culture.
I have many many thoughts on why people would better benefit from peaceful interaction than hateful and in most ways retarded pre-judgements that rule their perceptions of each other.
Truly, I believe that if we all use our noggins more than our quick emotional reactions, things in life would be better all around. Stay in school, kids.
Thanks for that emo crap. I like to live with everyone with harmony, smoking dope and getting drunk, but sometimes you have to hit a fool on the head and stand up for what you believe.
Violence is necessary sometimes to defend innocent people and such against certain aggresive individuals, but us adults do try to be civilized and classy.
It's an ugly world out there, make no error in thinking I don't know that. But I don't think it has to be all the time, everyday, everywhere. It can be nice and peaceful when you want it to be.
What is THIS all about?
Dude, did Superman start posting here all of a sudden? :)
Lol you think I'm on a "quest for peace?"
I guess I could be. I like superman because he stands for something very american and very human, the protection of all our rights as human beings. That's why I didn't like the american way being left out of the movie. It's more than just propoganda to a lot of people. To some, or perhaps just me, it's prettymuch life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Here's something I wrote while thinking of the struggles one must face in life: Persistence is the key to success in life. When the world is starring down at you ready to stomp your body down flat, look up and tell it “bring it on!”
That's what I think of now when I think of a true hero.
I know you probably don't care but my father has some sort of mental illness that I can only imagine what horrors he must go through daily, but he doesn't stop going day after day. If it were me, maybe I'd... I don't know. But he's not giving up just yet no matter how bad it is. I can respect that more than anything, ever.
Anyway, yeah I don't think there's anything wrong with peace.
Hey I love Peace as much as the next guy. But just like Superman with Doomsday there are days where you have to pick up your sword and strike down evil with a might vengence. Do you think you could negociate with Hitler or terrorists? No while you try to reason with them they are raping your wife and cutting your son to pieces. You have to fight. There is a time for peace and a time to fight. Today people are shocked when you act like superman with high values and strong sense of justice. This is how the world should work. Make an effort to make it that way.
I never said achieveing peace would mean you have to allow someone to rape your wife. That's completely absurd. If you go back and read what I said earlier, I said I think there will always come a time when people must use violence to protect innocent people from harm against certain individuals. It goes along with the old maxim, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
I'll be back to see what else is said in reply.
Peace is a myth. It is something you can strive for, but can never be.
It is in our nature to be violent. There is no questioning this. There may be anomaly's, that have no problem being 100% non-violent. But there will always be a Hussein, or a Hitler or a Hugo Chavez. People who will exploit violence in order to gain dominance. If everyone suddenly put away their weapons, joined hands and sang "We Are The World", someone like the above-mentioned individuals would take that opportunity to seize power.
Pacifism is fine for some, but ironically those who usually are pacifist are the least-likely to be able to defend themselves. So it makes sense for them to want EVERYONE to be pacifist, so they themselves don't have to worry about getting hurt.
We're all on one measly chunk of rock floating in outspace. So of course I don't think it'd be too difficult to expect some sense of harmony rather than live in fear of inevitable doom by some unknown element. Violence does not exist in itself. People make the choice out of their own free will to act in violent ways.
I already said it's an ugly world. But it doesn't have to be. I know what you're talking about, determinism.
On the other hand, I believe what superman believes. We can be better if we want to be. The world doesn't have to end by human hands. We can make the choice not to do evil, just as much as we can make the choice to do it.
That is all well and good intention wise. Realistically we are BORN violent. Nature vs. nurture, and to quote the legendary Christopher Walken, "Nature ALWAYS wins".
The only quote that matters when discussing peace is: "In order to have peace, prepare for war". No other delusions of peace are feasible in any way, shape, or form.
And that's really all good for the warmongers amongst us who only a fool doesn't know exists and is a part of reality. But what I know my Superman would say is, "in order to have peace, live without fear." Will that day come? I personally think that's up to us.
The fact with all the probability I can figure is that humanity will either blow itself to shit or wake up and finally seek the peace it desperately desires. Of course this isn't a black and white issue. There are all the shades in between I realize will unfortunately serve as the bridge from one side of the spectrum to the other as history teaches us time and time again. Nations all over the world are built from bloodshed, so many lives lost.
What I find fascinating is whether it's possible to achieve not just personal level of peace but global without massive conflicts.
;P
I know, politics on a blog like this? wtf?
I just thought I'd try something new. We can get back to posting comments like retards soon if that's what anyone wants to see.
That is humourous. We either have to blow ourselves up or live in peace. How bout the happy medium. I think this world is getting better. I my life time, in this country I have never seen the government knock down the door and take over. I find out about atrocities so that the men behind them can be punished. I have food, clothing, shelter and enough time to post on this blog. Because we are animals(soul or no soul depends on if you believe in God) we will always stive for more resources, power, etc. That is our nature. Society as a whole will never be like logic vulcans or war mongering Klingons. We will exhibit both sides and have the median in the center. Ror as pessimistic as your view of humanity is we are animals and we will survive.
Pacifists, unfortunately, aren't rational when it comes to the issue of what "peace" actually means.
It is not a "one or the other" equation like you put it. The following poster was correct, there are DEGREES of peace, but there can never, and WILL never be the kind of peace you THINK we need. YOUR idea of peace is not the idea of peace the guy down the street has.
So then I'm to pressume my words "of course this is not a black and white issue" were just completely ignored.
Thanks. ;)
Before we continue I would like to make it clear that I have never claimed to be or have ever beared the label of pacifist. I wouldn't be so bold yet to define my beliefs under that one term.
Now, from what I understand, and like I said, it's not black and white because indeed Peace to some is having a million dollars and sexy models in a hot tub or something like that. I'm looking at it in a social context and I think it goes without saying that no one expects everyone to go hold hands and sing tomorrow, though that'd probably be fun. Let's be realistic. Honest too.
I strive to be as honest as possible. I can't even think of a reason why I'd want to have some sort of little lame agenda to convince people to throw down their weapons and hug each other so that all over the world there's peaceful relations and then a hitler comes back and etc... I'm a bit surprised that one would think it necessary to project that image onto my text though it is worth a chuckle. *chuckles*
No guys. I live in a shit hole so I don't need a lecture on how dangerous life is or specifically why everyone's not just a pacifist. That's all very obvious. Just rewind your mind by 5 years to see why. Hell, I live in the city it happened in. I'm interested in possibilities for a better tomorrow, same as superman. I think there are good people like him in this world, maybe the fight for peace is never-ending, like superman's. Personally, I'll never give up hope that good will always prevail.
And no matter what you perceive, good IS winning.
The way you are posting, it is obvious you are a pacifist, whether you "label" yourself as one or not. So don't be "surprised" by anyone's reaction to your words. They are YOUR words we are responding to. Your fight for "peace" may SEEM noble, but is mis-guided and unrealistic.
For the record, where you live has NO bearing on what we are talking about, and the "rewind your mind" statement is border-line offensive. WE are speaking as people who realize there are bad people out there that you have to watch out for. Not YOU.
Yes I understand, guy or gal. (At least I try to understand your pov.) What I understand is that I'll be labelled a pacifist and told in some sort of intimidating manner, or as intimidating as some anonymous user using caps can seem, that I am x,y,z by someone who doesn't know me. That's life in this e-world I suppose, no matter if you put in quotes "evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
It's fascinating...
The quicker you learn that the other person is always right online then the quicker you can laugh about the utter stupidity of some of the people online.
Fallacious accusations are thrown around online faster than a rubber ball at a basketball game, you're damn right about that... ;P
"Yes I understand, guy or gal. (At least I try to understand your pov.) What I understand is that I'll be labelled a pacifist and told in some sort of intimidating manner, or as intimidating as some anonymous user using caps can seem, that I am x,y,z by someone who doesn't know me. That's life in this e-world I suppose, no matter if you put in quotes "evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
It's fascinating..."
What is even MORE fascinating is those who IGNORE the point of a post, so they can feel like some sort of "victim". Case in point: YOU.
Let's get one thing straight, you pacifist pussy, I for one am glad people like YOU hold no sway in this world. What a sad, sad world THAT would be.
Go talk about peace to mom and dad, but don't forget to whine to them about the big, bad "anonymous user" who is trying to "intimidate" you online because he called you out on your inanity.
Oh, and quick tip Einstein: Don't reference someone ELSE posting "anonymously" when YOU are as well. Reeks of sub-par intelligence. But then again, everything you said has. Hmm. Carry-on then.
Hmmm, so then I wonder... Do you always attack people anonymously online or is it just something to do to make yourself feel somewhat important?
Says the idiot posting "anonymously".
Nope, I just "attack"(what a pussy!), people who THINK they are somehow more "enlightened" than others. Then, when faced with a true challenge to their offensive posts, act as a VICTIM, instead of responding.
Don't like it coward? Don't post here. It's that simple.
Who are you?
Your superior.
This is what make this blog worth posting to!
Now that all the idiotic "peace" talk is done, back to the topic at hand: Singerman Peeps was a horrid piece of tripe.
Let's discuss the reason why the columbine massacre happened.
Why did those two kids think it was a good idea to go kill their classmates?
Perhaps they sought peace through the barrel of a gun.
Yes, Singerman did indeed suck. Not as badly as "Apologists" suck, but it did suck.
Then again, this "film" spawned said "Apologists", so it becomes a "chicken or the egg" question....
Does God exist?
This "film" proves he doesn't....
My doctor told me facetiously that I would be dying in three days. What a joker, she was. Now I sued her for wrongful diagnosis. Har har har.
Who's laughing now, bitch.
Drugs'll end you son....
We're all going to die of course. What really truly matters is how much good you've done in your life.
Post a Comment