I actually enjoy understanding history. With this knowledge, I have discovered it tends to have some degree of repetition. There is some fiction I find appealing, but much of it I don't. I don't care for much of philosophy. If I don't agree with it, why try to enjoy story lines that are based on something I think is foolishness to begin with?

I tend to think there isn't much new under the sun. I realize new things are being discovered daily, but in reality, they are old things that are just now being discovered.

If you try to put a new paint job on an old car, it might look better than it did before the paint job, but not as good as it did when the car itself was new.

I don't care much for things I can figure out in the first few minutes. It ruins it for me. If it's based on history and a compelling story, I can overlook it as part of the learning experience.

If I sound like a dried up old prune...join the club...

I probably wouldn't be critical if I was that cynical, corrijean. I'm quite sure human beings, and animals can change their mind. They can learn and are free to choose. I don't believe in a predetermined world.

People can and do change their minds, but it is still in their nature to protect their territory.

It isn't surprising if they act according to their instincts. Many people can take a step back, and realize that the gut reaction to protect creates a lot of evil. Others can't.

And what exactly is "their territory"? I don't think invading other countries qualifies an example of the instinct to protect their territory. Something else entirely is going on with the media promoting the notion of government sanctioned murder, rape, torture, and the theft of other people in other countries, far from home.

Their "territory" seems to be very fluid to me. All it takes is a politician to call on their need to protect whatever and they line up.

As I said, many sports are basically ritualized territory protection. It doesn't take much to trigger the instinct.

I think we're still conquering. It's just a lot more cleverly disquised these days than ahoy lets invade Finland, I hear they have good vodka.

I think I'm going to disagree with your "territory protection" theory for now, simply because of something else you brought up which I think I can understand better. That is the "leader". If a politician, or coach, can get people to do what they wish, then I would think the "leader" to be a much more powerful force in directing people to do such horrific things. The "territory protection" theory doesn't account for long-range bombing of peoples. The Asch conformity experiments seems to support the "leader" theory as well.

Oh great. trysts is "now" putting quotes on "words". This is my "cue" to leave.

Quotes make you uncomfortable, mrguy? What, some "tragedy" from "gradeschool"?

"Quotes" don't make me uncomfortable. trysts quoting "words" does.

Hard to believe the Academy Award went to "A Separation" for foreign language picture? I thought the Academy wouldn't know what a great film was?

"?" Words usually get quoted, mrguy. On this planet, at least

Oh, and "The Artist" winning the best film of the year is at least funny, instead of completely annoying, like it is most years.

+1

I'm happy it won. 

Perhaps you are too simple to understand. It happens.

It was a big surprise to me! An Iranian film winning in the U.S. in this day and age? It's one of the best things the Academy has ever done- voting for quality over politics.

I agree, I'd like to think I could think of some interesting compelling scripts, but who would listen to my ideas, probably not Hollywood.  

I have a friend who swears Project Greenlight stole his script.

I think some of these Hollywood scripts are are written by one monkey, with one typewriter, in a room for one hour