[quote=“cfimages”][quote=“skoster”]To be fair, many activities people partake in have no redeeming value in other peoples eyes.
Visual arts bore me to tears, if another photo was never created my life would be no poorer.
Even though I consider photography a waste of time, energy and money which could be spent producing something I value, I wouldn’t want to deny someone else the thing which brings them joy.
I certainly wouldn’t insult them for doing something I consider wasteful and useless, since I respect the fact that it’s really none of my business if that’s how they choose to spend their time.
Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2[/quote]
But visual arts or any other activity you can think of, doesn’t have violence as its only purpose. There’s no point to fighting other than to beat someone up. We don’t allow it with dogs or chickens, there’s no reason to allow it with humans.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2[/quote]
Sure there is, personal sovereignty, possibly the most important reason every conceived for not prohibiting human endeavors.
it is about freedom of choice. People choose to fight, dogs and chickens are thrown into a pen to fight. A lot of people have a lot of anger inside them, rather let them punch a willing opponent than let it come out during Saturday or Sunday night in Carrefour
It’s possible the OP simply wants to practice fighting. Much as we’d like to pretend that the world is a civilised place, 75% of the planet is an irredeemable shithole, and in 20% of the rest violence is simmering just below the surface. In various times and places, people who know how to defend themselves are the ones who stay alive.
I wonder if the film ‘fight club,’ has some skew on peoples perceptions. It portrayed participants as crazy or lost souls. I wonder if our discourse here would be different if the film had a more positive slant towards why people join in.
Interesting you saw it that way - I thought what made it a good film was the ambiguity of the main character(s) portrayal. Was he a nutcase with multiple personalities, or was he the only sane person in a world gone mad?
Interesting you saw it that way - I thought what made it a good film was the ambiguity of the main character(s) portrayal. Was he a nutcase with multiple personalities, or was he the only sane person in a world gone mad?[/quote]
I saw a man having a nervous breakdown. I’m not sure, as I sit here, if the fight club even existed and was all part if a psychotic fantasy. I got more of a feeling of ambiguity from American Psycho where it was possible he’d dreamt the whole thing up, or it was possible that these people were so faceless and interchangable that nobody cared enough to know who was alive and who was dead.
[quote=“skoster”][quote=“cfimages”][quote=“skoster”]To be fair, many activities people partake in have no redeeming value in other peoples eyes.
Visual arts bore me to tears, if another photo was never created my life would be no poorer.
Even though I consider photography a waste of time, energy and money which could be spent producing something I value, I wouldn’t want to deny someone else the thing which brings them joy.
I certainly wouldn’t insult them for doing something I consider wasteful and useless, since I respect the fact that it’s really none of my business if that’s how they choose to spend their time.
Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2[/quote]
But visual arts or any other activity you can think of, doesn’t have violence as its only purpose. There’s no point to fighting other than to beat someone up. We don’t allow it with dogs or chickens, there’s no reason to allow it with humans.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2[/quote]
Sure there is, personal sovereignty, possibly the most important reason every conceived for not prohibiting human endeavors.
Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2[/quote]
We make laws all the time to protect people and in most civilized countries people broadly support them. Restrictions on driving drunk, or laws for helmets and seatbelts, restrictions on guns and knives to name a few. If personal sovereignty were all that’s needed, none of those laws would exist.
Interesting you saw it that way - I thought what made it a good film was the ambiguity of the main character(s) portrayal. Was he a nutcase with multiple personalities, or was he the only sane person in a world gone mad?[/quote]
I saw a man having a nervous breakdown. I’m not sure, as I sit here, if the fight club even existed and was all part if a psychotic fantasy. I got more of a feeling of ambiguity from American Psycho where it was possible he’d dreamt the whole thing up, or it was possible that these people were so faceless and interchangable that nobody cared enough to know who was alive and who was dead.[/quote]
My impression was the same in both movies. It was all a dream / breakdown / fantasy.
Interesting you saw it that way - I thought what made it a good film was the ambiguity of the main character(s) portrayal. Was he a nutcase with multiple personalities, or was he the only sane person in a world gone mad?[/quote]
I saw a man having a nervous breakdown. I’m not sure, as I sit here, if the fight club even existed and was all part if a psychotic fantasy. I got more of a feeling of ambiguity from American Psycho where it was possible he’d dreamt the whole thing up, or it was possible that these people were so faceless and interchangable that nobody cared enough to know who was alive and who was dead.[/quote]
My impression was the same in both movies. It was all a dream / breakdown / fantasy.
[/quote]
In the book (American Psycho) that impression was definitely created as well, though there was contradictory evidence. Deliberate ambiguity for sure, and Superking may have nailed the author’s intent above. I haven’t got around to the film.
Interesting you saw it that way - I thought what made it a good film was the ambiguity of the main character(s) portrayal. Was he a nutcase with multiple personalities, or was he the only sane person in a world gone mad?[/quote]
I saw a man having a nervous breakdown. I’m not sure, as I sit here, if the fight club even existed and was all part if a psychotic fantasy. I got more of a feeling of ambiguity from American Psycho where it was possible he’d dreamt the whole thing up, or it was possible that these people were so faceless and interchangable that nobody cared enough to know who was alive and who was dead.[/quote]
My impression was the same in both movies. It was all a dream / breakdown / fantasy.
[/quote]
In the book (American Psycho) that impression was definitely created as well, though there was contradictory evidence. Deliberate ambiguity for sure, and Superking may have nailed the author’s intent above. I haven’t got around to the film.[/quote]
I found the book to be a lot more ambiguous than the movie. After the book, I didn’t know whether it was meant to be real or fantasy, whereas after the movie I had few doubts that it was fantasy.
I found the book to be a lot more ambiguous than the movie. After the book, I didn’t know whether it was meant to be real or fantasy, whereas after the movie I had few doubts that it was fantasy.[/quote]
Interesting, I’ll have to check it out some time. It was a great book.
Interesting you saw it that way - I thought what made it a good film was the ambiguity of the main character(s) portrayal. Was he a nutcase with multiple personalities, or was he the only sane person in a world gone mad?[/quote]
I saw a man having a nervous breakdown. I’m not sure, as I sit here, if the fight club even existed and was all part if a psychotic fantasy. I got more of a feeling of ambiguity from American Psycho where it was possible he’d dreamt the whole thing up, or it was possible that these people were so faceless and interchangable that nobody cared enough to know who was alive and who was dead.[/quote]
My impression was the same in both movies. It was all a dream / breakdown / fantasy.
[/quote]
In the book (American Psycho) that impression was definitely created as well, though there was contradictory evidence. Deliberate ambiguity for sure, and Superking may have nailed the author’s intent above. I haven’t got around to the film.[/quote]
I found the book to be a lot more ambiguous than the movie. After the book, I didn’t know whether it was meant to be real or fantasy, whereas after the movie I had few doubts that it was fantasy.[/quote]
i love you guys for bringing up american psycho. one of my favorite movies of all time.
to the guy who said he didn’t get the concept of a “fight club”. it’s not necessarily how it sounds like. it’s just basically an organized street fight scene for people who enjoy fighting. sometimes you just get that itch to fight and that’s why i have been boxing for several years. i don’t have the resources to go amateur so it’s hard for me to compete. yes, you will suffer injuries it’s rare for them to be life-threatening. broken bones, concussions, bruises, cuts, scrapes, and the like. the worst i’ve had is a minor concussion.
But in a fight club everyone is a willing participant. How it is anyone else’s business if two guys in musth want to square off, for sport?[/quote]
You could say the same about wearing a helmet or seatbelt. But we still have laws regarding them.[/quote]
For a seatbelt you can injure others as you fly around your vehicle during a collision. So not wearing one can injure someone else. For helmets (unless you wear a proper big helmet) you are only really keeping your brains from spilling out in the event of a collision. I guess it is less of a burden on our psyche than to see peoples brains smashed all over the road.
I agree American Psycho da movie was far less ambiguous. Movie makers believe audiences are morons and so push your conclusions for you. I really did like American Psycho da movie in spite of a poor ending.