katefan wrote:Just a horrid movie with no redeeming features.
Mikey wrote:Indeed, the film had some redeeming features; and further, Katefan, your premise isn't entirely accurate. The Ba'ku never claimed to have rejected machinery. As we all know, wheels, ramps, levers, and pulleys are all machines. They said they had rejected modern (from a late 24th-cent. POV) technology. Even a modern Amish man in Pennsyltucky uses machines, he just doesn't use the latest technology. You may decide to gloss over the difference for the sake of making your argument, but the difference is still clearly extant.
Mikey wrote:The Ba'ku never claimed to have rejected machinery.
Captain Seafort wrote:Two men were watching a mechanical digger digging a trench
"If it wasn't for that digger, twelve men with shovels could be doing that job."
"Yes, and if weren't for your twelve shovels, two hundred men with teaspoons could be doing the job."
Mikey wrote:If you and I were having a conversation about how I avoid modern transportation technology, and I then got into my ICE car and drove away, you would know that my comment must refer to some transportation technology subsequent to IC technology.
If you are going to talk specifically about the fact of that bit of colloquial speech referring to something which is plainly deemed to be understood to be excluded from such a reference
Captain Seafort wrote:If you are going to talk specifically about the fact of that bit of colloquial speech referring to something which is plainly deemed to be understood to be excluded from such a reference
It's a pretty absolute statement. I interpret it as simple hypocrisy: they'll use technology whenever they consider it too inconvenient not to, but they'll continue pedalling their luddite drivel.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest