I'm sick of people saying you can't criticize something unless you've seen it, or been there, or any version of those terms that simply means, "I don't want to accept what you've told me. I'm afraid it might be true and I, therefore, am wrong.".

Neitzsche was a coward. Sure there's some stray quotes of his that are valid. Lots of nine-year-olds say some very interesting and true things, that doesn't make them a great philosopher. Neitzsche was just a man.
Do you get that? I mean do you really understand that he was -just a man- ?
No god, no sage, no enlightened being - just a man.
How do I know this man wasn't the great philosopher people praise him to be? Because I know.
Did I read all his writings and find flaws? Please, why would I bother?
He was -just a man-. Anyone who needs to read all the works of someone else to decide what -they- think, really doesn't think at all. They just regurgitate the thoughts of someone else.
Then what right do I have to say he wasn't brilliant? I've seen his followers, shallow beings that they are. I've talked to his converts. Yes, converts, to take someone else's opinion as your own is to be converted to their beliefs.
Nihilism ...how about excuseism? Nothing matters and what if it did, right? "God is dead" ...Neitzsche's faith was dead. Neitzsche's followers, those who revere him, are dead. Everyone I've met who liked this man was a coward. They followed example. He is his syphlictic haze, them in their 'end of the world' fog, promoting nothingism - don't dream, don't dare, don't risk.
No matter how many great quotes, interesting stories this man wrote, if all his believers are cowards he should have just thought quietly to himself.

I actually read an Ayn Rand book on a recommendation. It was stupid. I laughed through most of it. Wish I could recall the title so I could recommend it for a good laugh. The basic concept was we should be free to do what we want. No! You're kidding??
It was a childish piece of crap.
'Great Female Philosopher' ...any women with a brain should be pissed that Rand would be called that. She had a very immature style of expressing the obvious.
If you actually read all her books, or most, argue about what she means, you are way lost. You are trying to say what you think some dead woman meant. Think about it. Some dead woman with a immature writing style. You argue what she meant.
Just say what -you- mean without having to fall back on someone else's own thoughts. What a novel concept that would be to Rand followers. The people I've met who like her only quote and read her to back up their anger at God ('Rand says he doesn't exist, so there'), or to mis-use the simple concept of selfishness to use others. Selfishness is not bad. Many people need to be more selfish, but many who have already passed beyond selfishness, into using others, use Rand's philosophies to justify their actions. Not wanting to give a homeless man a quarter is okay, Rand covers that, but kicking and berating the man for being homeless is not part of Rand's philosophies.

The last time I saw a movie I knew would stink, someone recommended 'Heathers' as a "must see". What a waste of film that was.

This is a great movie. It is brilliant. That's what I've heard, and that's what I believe. I don't have to see it. I know it's a good movie.
If I know it's a good movie, why does it stink?
One word : Genius
David Helfgott was a child prodigy. Child prodigies usually grow out of it, but because of a nervous breakdown David Helfgott never got the chance. Now, even though his brain is messed up, and his playing is poor, he's still a genius. Why? Well because the movie is brilliant.
A genius would still be able to play beyond the most remarkable players. David Helfgott isn't a genius, he is a poor man who had some tough breaks in life and had the courage, or unknowing strength to keep going. Call him brave, but don't call him a genius. Admit you'd pay large sums of money to see him because you feel sorry for him, don't pretend it's because you believe it's a once in a life chance to see a genius at work. Madness doesn't equal genius.

Could there be a stupider movie for really bored people?
Probably, wait a few years.
When I read the premise of this movie, I wondered how long it took the author to decide on car crashes as the fetish. There's tons of fetishes out there. Why not skydiving? Too hard to film? So instead, some very dull people try to make their lives interesting by 'revisiting' the adrenaline rush of car crashes and having sex. We are supposed to see this as a novel new way to add excitment to our sex lives.
Have some really grown this tired of their dreary lives?

AIDS and other STD's, have made people more and more afraid of sex.
It's also made sex seem like a naughty thing. All the bad little boys and girls, you should be punished.
In a society with the self-esteem of the average person at near nil, being naughty and getting punished fits right in. If you feel you are worthless, getting a good whipping takes all the responsibility away.
Spend all day yelling at employees you think are smarter than you and will realize that one day? Come home and have your mate tie you up. You are helpless, as helpless as you feel inside. Add a bit of fear to the equation and all of lifes little dilemmas fade away. You are now what you believe you deserve.
Fear, helplessness, they help equalize the insignificance some feel, the boredom that is the life they've made for themselves. I hope to never meet someone who actually enjoyed this movie. They must be terribly dull.

Can you say 'wants to be weird'?
This poor guy will try just about anything to get noticed, but without the flair of Dennis Rodman (nor the admission).
Just hope his next great cause isn't the beauty of the 'natural' body.

Wouldn't it be nice to deny the past and how the events actually happened and do a complete rewrite? That is the main thought behind Oliver Stones movies - revisionist history.
With the population in general not going to the source, or even looking at the varying angles of events, but merely accepting what is presented on the evening news as an unbiased recount, Stone's work will one day, one day very soon, be seen as fact. Anyone who goes to these movies is risking the chance of false memories taking the place of what really happened. This is Stone's goal - mass manipulation - .
Those who believe they are too smart to buy into his propaganda, and claim they see his movies because he's a brilliant director are missing the point. Next time they see one of his movies, they should ask someone on the way out about any fact the movie misinterpreted and see the response. "Well, I had heard such-and-such happened, but now I'm not sure.".

The Heaven's Gate Away Team members believed strongly in free will.
Those outside the group, previous friends and family, didn't understand they chose to belong to the group by free will.
Anyone who tells you your options of free will is taking them away from you. It's like the guilt trip "If you loved me you would.". The choice is yours, but the clear choice is what the other person wants you to do. The option of not doing what they want is made to be someone else's ideas for you, while doing what they want is made to be your choice, what you really want to do. In this manner, choosing what they want you to do, is bravely making the decision of using your own free will.
Free will means doing what you want to do regardless of all other persons ideas for you, not "What are my choices again?".

Fate is a choice word right now with some people. There are those who believe fate is something to be tested. Is it fate that they have the best in life, or that they lose? They strive for the best to test the 'limits' of fate. Then there are those who use the term to fail. They never try, never strive, and write the failures and hardships off to fate.

fate :

1. the power supposed to determine the outcome of events; destiny.
(a 'power' - to me -powers- are something to fight against)

2. one's lot or fortune.
(a 'lot' is like a gamble, no predetermination here, though it's often read into the word 'fate')

3. final outcome.
(final, not what is forseen to happen, what actually occurs through the choices you make)

4. death; destruction.
(need I say anything about these two phrases?)

This phrase bothers me alot because I actually knew someone who believed that someone else knew his fate. Ok, he didn't really believe it, but he convinced himself it was best to play along.
Which is worse really?

I don't like the interchanging of the words fate and destiny, here's why.

destiny :

1. the seemingly inevitable succession of events.

2. (one's) fate.

Destiny gives us the correct mode of operation - 'seemingly inevitable'. By definition it asks we test the limits in our life.
Fate, however, is the end of living.

There are very few women's magazines that don't stink. Vogue's alright, Bazaar, sometimes, but Cosmo, Glamour and the rest stink. I'll exclude most 'family' magazines, because they're mostly recipes and bad fiction for bored housewives. Cosmo is probably the worse. It assumes all women are stupid - complete morons. Anyone who defends the publication would have to be one. The main concern for women, according to Cosmo and the other 'powerful woman' magazines, is how to win men, keep men, make men happy, and tell men what they want. That's the soul purpose of a 'liberated' woman's life according to these publications.
Next time you're standing in line at a grocery store, have a look at the covers :

That's the mindset. One magazine had an article on 'Fixing Your Car'. I thought it was a giant step forward, till I read the first line :

"The first thing you need to learn to repair your car, is the difference between a 'part' and a 'tool'."

A recent publication gave a description on how to manipulate 'your man' to get him to be more romantic. It described how to start a fight, for no reason, just to confuse him. Then, with him not knowing what he's done wrong, he'll be more responsive in hopes he won't do it again and face your anger. They honestly try to pass this off as relationship advice, and I wondered why the majority of the female population is a bunch of emotional psychos?

PETA, People for the ethical treament of animals, is considered an organization. However, I consider it an idea that stinks, because it really isn't so much an organization to help animals, as it is the soapbox of it's operators, not to draw attention to the unethical treatment of animals, but to draw attention to themselves and their self-righteous belief that they know what is best, for animals, and any issue they can wedge into the animal abuse issue. Much like a serial killer kills to see the press reports, PETA organizes lame 'protests' to see the organization's, name in print. The 800 number PETA was supposidly setting up along with a Pearl Jam concert, was never set up. Apparently the press about the number was enough for the group. The group's name was in print, why waste the cost of an 800 number?
PETA thrives on manipulating people, usually do-gooder college kids who don't question their motives, or look beyond their version of the 'facts', but instead dress up in frog suits to protest frog disections in classrooms. Seeing these kids, not to mention Hollywood stars, super models, anyone who wants some press, espousing the ideals of PETA helps the group feel they have a purpose, and gets everyone a little 'air time'.