How is "can't act" in the film itself? First off, what is he doing if he's not acting?

Because you can objectively observe Harrison Ford not acting well. His acting prowess is in the film.

You didn't say he's not acting well, you said he can't act. Acting poorly would be acting, wouldn't it?

In case you're retarded, not acting is a way of saying not acting well. Make sense?

Anyway, how is "not acting well" in the film itself. Just what properties of his acting are "not acting well"?

The stunted delivery of his lines, the lethargic and unnatural speech, the impression that he's going to keel over at any minute while trying to impersonate a tough, go-get-'em space traveler, etc.

Why is stunted delivery not acting well rather than acting well? What makes that count as not acting well in other words?

Before I go there, are you just going to keep asking 'why' questions to every answer I provide?

If so, this will not get what you want, to differentiate between the rock and movie cases, since I can just ask you what makes a rock heavy, and then no matter what you respond with, ask why x means that the rock is heavy, rather than light. See how that works.

The problem is that I can answer that for the rock. All that we're saying is that relative to other rocks, when we put the rock on a scale, it weighs more--the scale reads a higher number. It doesn't matter what we name that, the name is just picking out that objective property.

So what makes stunted delivery bad acting rather than good acting?

What makes the scale reading a higher number a heavy rock rather than a light one?

Again, it doesn't matter what we call it. It's just a name for that objective property. It has no other connotation. You could call it anything.

OK, so why is good or interesting not just a name for these objective properties?

Well, is that what you're saying? It's just a name for some set of properties (properties which you'd have to specify) and that it has no other connotation, such as a positive or negative connotation, or a normative connotation or anything like that?

(properties which you'd have to specify) — Terrapin Station

Not true. I did specify them for specific case upon request. Why are you lying?

and that it has no other connotation, such as a positive or negative connotation, or a normative connotation or anything like that? — Terrapin Station

But connotations are not what is at issue. When applied to people, 'heavy' has a negative connotation. That doesn't mean calling someone heavy is about your personal tastes. It's about whether someone is heavy. Likewise for calling a movie good or interesting. It's not about your personal tastes, but about whether the movie is good or interesting.

When applied to people, 'heavy' has a negative connotation. — The Great Whatever

There are no objective positive or negative connotations. No objective normatives.

But I didn't say there were.

So you agree that negative or positive connotations or normatives are subjective?

No, but I don't see what that has to do with what we're discussing. You implied that because good, interesting, etc. have connotations, that they therefore must be subjective. But since heavy has connotations, too, this would seem to commit you to heavy being subjective, which you've previously denied. So your argument has gone nowhere so far.

Heavy as something negative is definitely subjective. No disagreement there.

So you agree with that?

What was the last good movie that came out? I think that it was probably Inside Out. And what do you think was the best movie ever? I know that since Utena Adolescence Apocalypse exists that that isn't really a fair question, but we'll just take that off the table. Barring that, I think that Nausica of the valley of the wind, followed by Princess Mononoke are tops.

In my opinion, at least re the genre films I watch, the vast majority of films are good, including new ones. I don't really have a "best ever." I don't really think about artworks that way

Anyway, have to split for awhile, and it could be a day or so until I can post again. See you then.

I'm highly genre specific for the most part as well, but after reading at least a couple thousand manga, I think that maybe like four were good. Good ones too, I always come across too early on, and because they're fucking spectacular, everyone hates them, so I usually have to wait at least two months between chapters. At least you literally get to age with the characters, I guess.

Anime I'm more lenient on, as only like a dozen exist at all, and even though they come no where near the few good manga, I like about half of them.

but after reading at least a couple thousand manga, I think that maybe like four were good. — Wosret

Wow, no way I'd bother with a couple thousand of something if I were to feel that only four of them were good. Heck, I'd have a problem with much less than a 75% success rate for something like that.

Why go this far to defend Marvel films though? It was just an example, and why are they worth defending anyway? — The Great Whatever

Like you say, it was just an example. It is one of a number of things that you were judging to be shitty or trash, and that one should stop doing or throw away, and instead go and do something else of which you approve.

That's why - @csalisbury also - it's silly to make out as if it is just this one thing - what The Great Whatever thinks about Marvel films - that has ruffled my feathers.

I think it is worth defending because what you targeted is reprentative of a certain lifestyle and way of seeing things which I think has merit. And all I really get from you is that you don't see it that way, and have a different lifestyle, and you disapprove, and think that others who don't share your way of seeing things or your lifestyle are inferior, and that they should adopt your personal way of seeing things and your lifestyle.

I think that that's narrowminded and arrogant.

And @csalisbury, even if you're right in what is basically a charge of hypocrisy against me, that has no bearing on my criticism of The Great Whatever (cf. Tu quoque).

I guess we can just decide not to hold ourselves to any standards and just live like plebs and animals, but that sounds lame, I'll choose a better worldview. — The Great Whatever

That's jumping to extremes. More hyperbole?

As you can see, Harrison Ford can't act. Movies with actors that can't act are bad. So the movie is bad. This is objectively observable as much as a rock's weight. — The Great Whatever

>:O

Unintentionally funny argument of the day?

I reckon I can find a more sophisticated assessment than that, and which contradicts yours - even if it accepts that Harrison Ford doesn't act well in the movie. Would that one be objective or not? If so, then yours would be wrong.

I don't buy that the subjective plays no part in these assessments. It can influence them. Calling yours objective is suspicious, to say the least.

I reckon I can find a more sophisticated assessment than that, and which contradicts yours - even if it accepts that Harrison Ford doesn't act well in the movie. Would that one be objective or not? If so, then yours would be wrong. — Sapientia

Uh, yeah, that's kind of how it works. Although I don't think you will find any, since all evidence points to the movie being bad.

I don't buy that the subjective plays no part in these assessments. It can influence them. Calling yours objective is suspicious, to say the least. — Sapientia

Influence them? What does that matter? What matters is whether they're right. Subjectivity can't influence that.

And all I really get from you is that you don't see it that way, and have a different lifestyle, and you disapprove, and think that others who don't share your way of seeing things or your lifestyle are inferior, and that they should adopt your personal way of seeing things and your lifestyle.

I think that that's narrowminded and arrogant. — Sapientia

Well, I don't think those things, so that's again your projection.

And besides, suppose it's my 'personal opinion' that it's not narrow-minded and arrogant. In fact, maybe my 'personal opinion' is that thinking that which lifestyles are appropriate is determined by arbitrary individual opinion is 'narrow-minded and arrogant.' Now what are you going to do? It's just my 'personal opinion.' For you to contradict it or suggest I hold another would be 'narrow-minded and arrogant,' right?

And also, why would a lifestyle that involves watching Disney movies and not knowing how to cook have merit? Why not defend something interesting or worthwhile instead?

And @csalisbury, even if you're right in what is basically a charge of hypocrisy against me, that has no bearing on my criticism of The Great Whatever (cf. Tu quoque).

Red Herring! The criticism you leveled was never a reasoned, logical argument nor even presented as such, so fallacy-sniping doesn't make any sense in this context at all. you objected to TGW on the grounds that you had a different view and didn't like his tone (you cited snobbery, for one...ad hominem! appeal to emotion! blah)

So, yeah, you didn't like his tone or his opinion because you felt like you were being judged for your cultural values and preferences. But so what? Everyone makes such value judgments, including you. So what's your point? I assume you don't want to argue that people shouldn't make value judgments or have tones?

So again, there seems to be this background thing going on where you feel comfortable and confident slyly mocking the beliefs and traditions of others, but weirdly thin-skinned when people mock movies and ordering takeout. Anyway, I'm just saying that's the vibe I get from many of your posts, the tone, and I think this asymmetry (insouciant dismissal of certain values and cultures on the one hand, outrage when you think the stuff you like is being dismissed on the other) suggests extreme narrowmindedness and arrogance.

Not my fault that everything is terrible.