iodill8
Jobber
Help the Stupid, they're contagious.
Posts: 1,579 
|
Moderation
Feb 11, 2014 22:28:17 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by iodill8 on Feb 11, 2014 22:28:17 GMT -5
SHE WAS ALIVE THIS WHOLE TIME???!!!!!!!
I thought she died in like 1992 or 1981 or something!!
|
|
|
|
Moderation
Feb 11, 2014 22:28:34 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by skylerb97 on Feb 11, 2014 22:28:34 GMT -5
I loved the Shirley Temple movies......I just lost my man card, didn't I? worse you lost the "I love quality films card" with it |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Feb 11, 2014 22:28:59 GMT -5
So uh... what's that thing you're typing on there, Mr. Luddite? I didn't mean I agree with what the message is. I meant that I agree with that's what the book was saying. Hell, I'm a huge technological person and think that every single enhancement is for the better fore the most part. I think that statement, taken as a description of the book, is based on something Ray Bradbury would have said in 1995, not in 53 when he wrote it. In more recent years, Bradbury has gone completely insane and become terrified of technology (he's the genius that said "we have too many internets!"), but back in the 50's and 60's, he had a more optimistic appraisal of technology, and believed that so long as it didn't fall under the control of governments, technology would elevate humanity. He's a huge proponent of space travel; how exactly would one develop that without technological advancement? |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Feb 11, 2014 22:29:26 GMT -5
I loved the Shirley Temple movies......I just lost my man card, didn't I? Yup. |
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Feb 11, 2014 22:32:01 GMT -5
I don't think he meant all technological advancement was bad. In actuality, I'm not really disagreeing with you. He wasn't saying technology was bad, he was saying that government taking control of it is. It was more so, "advancement isn't bad, but being controlled by the advancement is."
|
|
|
|
Moderation
Feb 11, 2014 22:32:02 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by skylerb97 on Feb 11, 2014 22:32:02 GMT -5
I loved the Shirley Temple movies......I just lost my man card, didn't I? Yup. I always though of those movies as an older version of Annie that worked once. So they decided to run a Midly successful thing into the ground. But that's Hollywood for ya |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Feb 11, 2014 22:33:04 GMT -5
I remember reading several stories where he was against technological advancements. One of which was the flying machine one, and another was this one that seemed like it was somewhat against technology which told the story of a poor family that dreamed of one day traveling to the stars, and the guy got enough money for one of them to get a ticket to go, and in the end none of the family members wanted to go because the felt guilty about the others not going. The guy then spent his money on buying some materials to build his own rocketship(A fake one) and made his children think that they had actually gone on an actual rocketship.
|
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Feb 11, 2014 22:34:03 GMT -5
I loved the Shirley Temple movies......I just lost my man card, didn't I? Yup. Well, then I'll exit that part of the conversation with these last few words: |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Feb 11, 2014 22:35:53 GMT -5
I remember reading several stories where he was against technological advancements. One of which was the flying machine one, and another was this one that seemed like it was somewhat against technology which told the story of a poor family that dreamed of one day traveling to the stars, and the guy got enough money for one of them to get a ticket to go, and in the end none of the family members wanted to go because the felt guilty about the others not going. The guy then spent his money on buying some materials to build his own rocketship(A fake one) and made his children think that they had actually gone on an actual rocketship. You're translating a couple of stories where technology goes bad into an entire philosophy for the man? LOL dude, seriously, look this up... he is a HUGE believer in space travel and was once a big proponent of advancing technology through private research. His primary objections revolved (and still do) around technology becoming the end itself, rather than the means to the end. |
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Feb 11, 2014 22:36:16 GMT -5
I always though of those movies as an older version of Annie that worked once. So they decided to run a Midly successful thing into the ground. But that's Hollywood for ya Shirley was first.... |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Feb 11, 2014 22:38:59 GMT -5
I remember reading several stories where he was against technological advancements. One of which was the flying machine one, and another was this one that seemed like it was somewhat against technology which told the story of a poor family that dreamed of one day traveling to the stars, and the guy got enough money for one of them to get a ticket to go, and in the end none of the family members wanted to go because the felt guilty about the others not going. The guy then spent his money on buying some materials to build his own rocketship(A fake one) and made his children think that they had actually gone on an actual rocketship. You're translating a couple of stories where technology goes bad into an entire philosophy for the man? LOL dude, seriously, look this up... he is a HUGE believer in space travel and was once a big proponent of advancing technology through private research. His primary objections revolved (and still do) around technology becoming the end itself, rather than the means to the end. I wasn't really disputing the point, I was just offering a few other books where he was against technology(Granted one was more so against war technology, and the other was only slightly related against technology). I already guessed that he was an advocator of technology and space travel judging by that Mars book he wrote... |
|
|
|
Moderation
Feb 11, 2014 22:39:37 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by skylerb97 on Feb 11, 2014 22:39:37 GMT -5
I always though of those movies as an older version of Annie that worked once. So they decided to run a Midly successful thing into the ground. But that's Hollywood for ya Shirley was first.... I said older. I always thought they were similar. Maybe the word predecessor would've worked better there |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Feb 11, 2014 22:39:45 GMT -5
Shirley Temple started acting in 1932. Little Orphan Annie debuted in 1894.
|
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Feb 11, 2014 22:41:06 GMT -5
Shirley Temple started acting in 1932. Little Orphan Annie debuted in 1894. I thought he was talking strictly about the broadway... |
|
|
|
Moderation
Feb 11, 2014 22:43:39 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by skylerb97 on Feb 11, 2014 22:43:39 GMT -5
Shirley Temple started acting in 1932. Little Orphan Annie debuted in 1894. I thought he was talking strictly about the broadway... in regards to Annie I might've been referring to the movie. Can we just end this part of the conversation |
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Feb 11, 2014 22:43:58 GMT -5
I meant to say movie...
It seems I was wrong though. Shirley came out two years after I believe from what I've looked up.
|
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Feb 11, 2014 22:44:19 GMT -5
I hate Dragon Ball Z.
|
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Feb 11, 2014 22:45:15 GMT -5
I thought he was talking strictly about the broadway... in regards to Annie I might've been referring to the movie. Can we just end this part of the conversation |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Feb 11, 2014 22:45:49 GMT -5
I thought he was talking strictly about the broadway... in regards to Annie I might've been referring to the movie. Can we just end this part of the conversation The musical movie from the 80's? I'm going to need your man card too. |
|
|
|
Post by skylerb97 on Feb 11, 2014 22:46:33 GMT -5
It was a big part of my childhood. And I enjoy it still but I won't act like it isn't ridiculous in every way imaginable |
|
