u/Kyia-Aikman

When The Devil’s Rejects was released in 2005 backstories (presumably written by Rob Zombie) were released for some of the villains on the film’s site. Otis Driftwood’s backstory implied he killed his abusive parents as a teenager and adopted the Marx Brothers name because they never gave him one. It also stated he drifted around the US until he met Captain Spaulding (who got his name from Otis) in the mid 1960s.

My question is would you want to see a prequel set in the 1940s and 1950s about Otis’ life before he met the Firefly family?

I personally would because he’s a great villain and his nature naturally lends itself to storytelling. When did he first discover devil worship? When did he first make someone’s face into a mask? What state did he spend the longest time in?

Most people (laymen and philosophers) would say that you aren’t morally obligated to give your life to save the life of a single person.

My question is does this same view hold if it were more than one person’s life at stake?

Would most moral philosophers say that you would be morally obligated to give your life to save the lives of two random people? Or five, 100, 50,000, etc.?

One of the selling points of revolvers for CCW that I constantly see is that they don’t have a slide to go out of battery if pressed against something like an autoloader does.

My question is do we even know that this has happened enough in self defense shootings to make it a meaningful selling point over an autoloader in the first place?

How many civilian self defense incidents have you read about where a revolver was the better option or saved them when an autoloader wouldn’t have?

What alien races could defeat a Post Crisis/New 52/Rebirth Kryptonian under a yellow sun in an individual random encounter without physical strength?

An example of what I mean are the Martians from DC that can (and have) incapacitate Kryptonians with telepathy.

The philosopher Thomas Hill Jr. made up a thought experiment decades ago about a woman who is extremely deferential and subservient to her husband.

>The deferential wife is utterly devoted to serving her husband. She buys the clothes he prefers, invites the guests he wants to entertain, and makes love whenever he is in the mood. She willingly moves to a new city in order for him to have a more attractive job, counting her own friendships and geographical preferences insignificant by comparison… She tends not to form her own interests, values, and ideals; and, when she does, she counts them as less important than her husband’s… The deferential wife believes that the proper role for a woman is to serve her family.

Assuming the wife (or husband if the genders were reversed) genuinely believes in the rightness of her deference and/or enjoys it and wasn’t brainwashed or coerced, how do you think Harris (or most other philosophers) would respond to this censure?

Would their response simply be that it isn’t immoral in the traditional harm sense of the word but is nonetheless an unhealthy way to live and a lifestyle you shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that lives?

What is your response to it?

The philosopher Thomas Hill Jr. made up a thought experiment decades ago about a woman who is extremely deferential and subservient to her husband.

>The deferential wife is utterly devoted to serving her husband. She buys the clothes he prefers, invites the guests he wants to entertain, and makes love whenever he is in the mood. She willingly moves to a new city in order for him to have a more attractive job, counting her own friendships and geographical preferences insignificant by comparison… She tends not to form her own interests, values, and ideals; and, when she does, she counts them as less important than her husband’s… The deferential wife believes that the proper role for a woman is to serve her family.

Assuming the wife (or husband if the genders were reversed) genuinely believes in the rightness of her deference and/or enjoys it and wasn’t brainwashed or coerced, what are the best arguments philosophers would make against her (or anyone) living a life like this?

Would it simply be that it isn’t immoral in the traditional harm sense of the word but is nonetheless an unhealthy way to live and a lifestyle you shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that lives?

You often hear from liberals (laymen and official) that conservatives are racist, evil, fascist, etc. and something like half of Americans are fascist maniacs yearning for Auschwitz crossed with the Handmaid’s Tale and Leave It to Beaver.

My question is isn’t this a self defeating and impractical belief that implies the only way we’re ever going to truly solve the country’s problems is through violence and/or dictatorship?

If half of voters are truly evil and dumb and this isn’t changing for the foreseeable future then how are we ever going to get to whatever liberal utopia they fantasize we could have if it weren’t for those rotten conservatives? How can a society that’s supposedly indefinitely split between people who want Norway and people who want Nazi Germany ever function, prosper or avoid descending into civil war and dystopia?

If our country is always an election away from Fascism and rivers of blood in the streets (Trump winning twice in eight years) then clearly not even having liberal politicians in office is good enough. It seems like liberals abhor political violence but at the same time describe things as so fundamentally dire that you wonder what other solution do they have in mind beyond voting for wine moms and empty suits and sharing SNL skits and John Oliver segments.

What horror subgenre would you make more popular if you could?

My choice would be anthology films and shows. We should be getting several quality horror anthology film a year and several horror anthology shows ongoing at once like in the 1980s.

616 and Rebirth versions.

Fight takes place in the middle of an empty parking lot.

They start 20 feet equidistant from each other.

Bloodlusted.

They only have civilian clothes and a single 9mm Glock 19 pistol.

They can only win with the pistol. They can’t engage in hand to hand combat whatsoever.

Someone posted a script on here years ago that was about an office worker in love with his coworker that ended up being a part of a subsection of humanity who were stuck in a time loop. There were certain rules he got reprimanded for not following by another person in the loop. I forget the title but I think it had a day of the week or something related in it.

Does anyone know what script I’m talking about?

Edit: I found it. It’s called Cosmic Sunday. I can’t seem to find where to actually read it though.

Imagine a Viltrumite post purge/virus that was orders of magnitude physical weaker and slower than the rest but had abilities that made them far more powerful than the rest. Abilities that allowed them to defeat or kill anyone and ignore durability with ease like mind control, transmutation, intangibility, etc.

How would they be viewed by other Viltrumites?