Cry me a river StingingVelvet

It's so funny that you wrote this just a few hours ago in another thread:

john_hatcher: I pity people like you who always feel above all others that do not share their exclusive opinion. Your only action, if you have no valid arguments is to ridicule the other person. Hope you feel all well in your tower of self-righteousness.

StingingVelvet: And I roll my eyes at people who immediately get upset and claim "self-righteousness" from those who disagree with them. All I said was most people don't care, but if you do then enjoy worrying about it. I never said anything about you being lesser or stupid or even wrong. Just that you care about something the vast majority don't.

It's especially funny tp be lectured on condescension from people with strict definitions of what DRM is and no patience for those who disagree. Pot meet kettle.

But when others disagree with you... Oh, the irony.

Get over yourself

You're free to believe I'm advocating a culture war and throwing things at you, but neither is true. I simply disagree with your assertions.

And with that, I'm going back to the reason I've been posting here... Star Wars.

I don't think you really understad what "theorem" means.

In particular, the statements that you are asking them to prove are statements that can't be expressed in a logical, purely objective, manner.

Here is a better example of a theorem (assuming that the proof is correct):

Theorem: 0 = 1
Proof:
0 * 0 = 0
1 * 0 = 0
Therefore:
0 * 0 = 1 * 0
Cancel the 0 from both sides, and whe get:
0 = 1

See? This is what a theorem would be. As you can see, every statement made in the proof is a completely objective mathematical statement, and there's a logical series of steps, so as long as there are no mistakes in the proof (and the assumptions made, which boil down to the axioms of arithmetic, are considered true), then the statement I made must be true.

In fact, the only acceptable way to refute my claim that 0 = 1 is to find a step in my proof that is somehow invalid.

dtgreene, I had hoped you will be lurking around here since I remembered you are fan of logic, and thus much more skilled in it then me, who merely got passing grade on the exam.

You are saying that statements which LootHunter requires can't be expressed logical manner, would you care to elaborate why?

Point b: 'That "actively inserted feminism" made Fury Road better movie'
This point does not work because it:
* Uses the term "feminism", which isn't a term that is defined precisely from a logic/math standpoint. In formal math, you need precise definitions, to the point where there can be no doubt what things mean. (Or it could be whatever meaning can be inferred from the axioms, but even then it follows very preicse rules.)
* "actively" isn't precisely defined either.
* Furthermore, what does it mean for the movie to be "better"?

In any case, the claim is clearly subjective, in that we can't just assign it a truth value that everybody would agree on. In logic/math, everyone who accepts the same axioms will agree on the truth value (or, rather, the provability, as "provable" and "true" are different concepts, and the latter isn't so simple to define); there is no opinions involved. (The only place opinions could really come into play would be the choice of axioms; that's how you get, for example, non-degenerate triangles with two right angles.)

In any case, LootHunter's required statements are not objective claims that have a definite truth value, but rather subjective claims that people might have different opinions in, and you can't have that in logic/math.

And? Those statements ARE parts of what Mafwek said to be "exercise in logic". I'm not the one who made that claim.

P.S. You can't cancel zero on both sides of equation, btw.

Yes, but we can construct logically valid argument for those subjective opinion - one where true conclusion is inevitably result if premises are true, if I am not mistaken? So it should be relatively easy to form logically valid proof for LootHunter's demands and even the counter-argument.
In any case thanks for your answer.

No. I said as far as I am concerned (made mistake in OP), actively inserted feminism made Fury Road a better movie. I never stated that it's objective opinion, in fact, I have said multiple time on the forum (once even to you, me thinks) that I don't believe in objective opinion as far as values are concerned. Objective fact is that I find Fury Road to be better because it actively inserted feminism. Reasons for that are mostly how it implemented it, but that's a different story. That doesn't mean that you can't have a logically valid argumentation for your subjective opinion, which is something I you somewhat have, but you also have outstanding leaps of logic. Not the mention you have stated many subjective opinions which you treat as absolute fact, while being unable to actually prove most of them - and not because your arguments suffer from ideological bias.

And I should care about it why? If your "logically valid argumentation" is based on your subjective opinion, than its validity only limited to your subjective worldview. And since I (and frankly everybody else) have a different worldview with different definitions of "feminism", "actively inserting" and what constitutes a "better" movie, your "exercise in logic" doesn't matter.

I don't know. I thought we have all came here to throw our own subjective opinions on the movies, and rant about how Disney ruined Star Wars. Subjective worldview doesn't matter, but objectivity matters even less.
Why should should you care if Johnson's "feminist" views got him appointed as director and screen writer? I don't care for that one, because I am pretty sure fans would complain about new movies in general regardless of "feminism" or who gets appointed, and Disney would still fuck it up because of it's incompetence.

But that's my opinion, and you don't care about anyone's opinion, so I'll be off.

If objective facts don't matter for you, then why are you claiming that I'm wrong about some of them? You can imagine that The Last Jedi is a great movie (like many modern 'journalist" do) and sit in your bubble.

So after watching the original trilogy over the xmas period (such well made films, even Jedi which was the weakest), and then punishing myself a little with the last prequel RotS. Yesterday i decided to watch TFA again, just to be sure.

Both RotS and TFA make similar mistakes, too much pure fan service nods and winks, too much 'over acting'; in RotS that is mostly down to Hayden Christensen's golden raspberry performance (which George Lucas signed off on as ok) that sort of kills Darth Vader as the composed and sinister villain we know well.

In TFA the 'over-acting' is all over the place, and just hits you as either tone-deaf, or heavy-handed. The first order rally as an echo of Hitlers infamous nazi rallies (you don't need to phone this in that much), the over the top 'Christensen-like' emotional turmoil part of Kylo-Ren etc. TFA could have been a great film in that the visual impact is all there, that opening sequence with Rey-as-scavenger is great, you really feel the whole existence she had been living (and TFA could have done with much more of this slower world building, but that is not JJ).

So it all rushes by, leaving little emotional impact, even when Han is killed by his son or in the scenes between Han and Leia. Too fast and too scared to slow down when good character and world building opportunity arises, and too many fan winks to get in the way of a good story being well told; which is just JJ Abrams all over as a Director sadly (those New Star Treks did exactly the same).

Sigh. Just such a waste of the biggest film opportunity of all time, and all of it is going to be forgotten in the future (unlike those originals) as they all fail so bad as films of merit and quality, just pure cash-cow vehicles now, with enough non-discerning punters willing to give money at the drop of a light-saber or fan service.

Have a good New Year fellow Star Wars fans, and maybe The Mandalorian can change the rot that is Star Wars currently?

I'll try to be clear and consistent:

1) Objective facts don't matter objectively, but they can matter subjectively depending on how you perceive them. Example: Let's assume Johnson was chosen because of his ideological worldview (doesn't matter if he was, if you want to know my opinion, I think he may as well be). That's the fact (if it's true). And that affects the movie... how? You have a gap between that fact, and value you apply to it. (Was it good or bad, for example. Arguments could be made for both, but they cannot be made simply from that fact alone).

2) I don't believe "good" or "bad" can be ever considered objective assessment of the work of art, at least not in the way I understand the word objective: "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations". You may claim there are objective standards of art, but as I see they are based on conventions and personal feelings of the group of people, not one person, so there is problem of what objectivity truly is.

3) Let's assume perception of group of people is indeed more objective than those of one, and such can be considered at least more objective than subjective opinion of a single person, and we can say that there can be "objectively good work of art". Than again, so what? There is no reason by that fact alone to care about it if someone likes an objectively bad movie, which creates a question why even bother about calling it such in the first place. Again, there is a gap between fact and value applied to it.

4) I don't consider TLJ great movie, I do respect somethings I heard about it. But again, you are going to have problems convincing me that it's objectively good or bad, or that you or "journalist" are wrong or right. If I watched it, I would probably personally dislike it, but still respect it more than TFA or RotS, based on my subjective value system alone. And I think you would suggest that movie should not be watched by any person who likes Star Wars.

Tell me, please, person who consideres TFA good film. Why Rey, with all her amazing skills as a fighter, pilot and even Force user, lived as scavenger in the desert, instead, I don't know mercenary, bodyguard, crime boss, or law enforcer? Anyone with a good job, stable payroll and everything that is so much better than live in the desert, hoping to find something to eat or to sell.

(i never said TFA 'was a good film'. I said it 'could have been a great film' as the visuals were all there).

Well i blame a badly told (not told) back-story? She later makes some small talk about 'waiting for her parents to come back for her', so maybe she was just waiting, and finding herself without much challenge did not 'trigger' the crazy skill-set that comes out in the film. I mean really her ability to fly the Falcon and know how to best repair it (over Han) was dumb, but it was a bad story-tellers method to let us know she was a 'big deal' (as we later find out in this latest Episode IX).

As i said everything around many of the chars in the prequels and Disney Star Wars was laid on too hard/much that it just gets in the way of telling a story you can believe and invest in. These films were about visual bling over content and as such the story telling and character development was just terrible (which is why we will never care about young Anakin or Rey etc).

Was Rey a Mary Sue? Or was she just a super latent jedi powered girl badly characterized by a terrible script/story? Was the Directors desire to have some cool looking scenes (Falcon escape fight amidst the wreckage of the Star Destroyers) interfering in the characters development to make her a likeable and interesting person? And this is not just Rey's problem. It covers pretty much all the character development through all the prequels and Disney Star Wars. Sure not every character had her innate ability to do everything, but some were pretty close considering their backgrounds, and all were characters we never got to really care about in the same way we did for Luke, Leia, Obi-wan, Han, Chewie, C3PO and R2D2.

In fact many of these characters (Rey included) were just hard not to dislike or be annoyed with, and that is ALL down to terrible scripts and character development within that.

We never bat an eye at Luke slowly discovering his latent force talent, because the whole story of that was spread over 3 whole films, was never rushed, and it had a proper sequence of training events (and failures) to guide him on his way. It was a proper story arc, with a proper (deserved) pay-off told at a steady pace over those three films.

I never had to ask after 15mins of the film, 'Where the heck did Luke learn to fly a ship like that' in the same way we do with Rey, because it will make some cool looking cinema. To be honest i think a good 50% of Rey's Mary Sue issues is just down too lazy film making and bad scripts and people involved in that process that just don't get what the problem can be in all that.

They made shed tonnes of money = they are not failures as films. End off.

And that is as much Disney's fault as it is ours for going to watch them imho. The 'Star Wars fan' is as much to blame as the failures of Lucas and Disney.

It's a bit like politics in a democracy in that we get the government we deserve. We've got the Star Wars we deserve.