Jurassic Park: by Michael Crichton

I just finished the novel.

What the f*ck was this guy's problem?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ldD_4Puw6RM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

just another liberal idiot

>f*ck
His problem was you're from Reddit.

how was he liberal
have you ever even reda the book

he didn't ban Jews, blacks, and women from entering the park. There's 'equality thinking' in his wanting to open a park for ALL people.

I'm not from Reddit. I just don't like swearing all the time.

>he didn't read it

Chili and sea bass
Yuck

Then why did you swear? Pseudo-censorship isn't avoidance of profanity anymore than saying "n-word" doesn't imply the word nigger, which it does. That's what language is: saying something to put an idea in someone else's head. Insofar as you say something if even in a roundabout manner that makes me envision that thing, then you ARE really saying it, as in the communication of that idea. If you don't want to swear, then don't swear. But don't act like putting a blindfold on yourself, or special window dressing on the subject to masquerade under another appearance, nullifies the intent or the outcome.

Oh.

If it was the same then you wouldn't have replied in the way that you did. It must have put a different idea in your head than simply leaving it uncensored would have.

Do y'all even read the gat dang book? He wanted to exploit the wealth of people. Giving children a sense of awe was a secondary priority for him.

you have autism

It's literally from Louis CK's 2007 or 2008 special. So I guess if the normiest of all normies has autism, then okay.

He spared no expense

Ed Regis actually says that

>It's literally from Louis CK's 2007 or 2008 special.
>citing a popular comedians' sketch instead of arguing the merits of your case
>So I guess if the normiest of all normies has autism, then okay.
>believing that a comedians' sketch is indicative of popular opinion
>believing that if something implies that everyone is wrong, then the claim itself must be wrong

Holy shit I was with you on the initial comment but you're actually autistic

shut up you f*cking retard

No

What's wrong with you?

It really doesn't matter who espoused the rhetoric if it rings true, and it does: the purpose of language is to convey an idea and so long as you create alternative terminology to refer to lets say the taboo, you are still putting the image of said taboo in the listener's head. So whether you say nigger or n-word, or fuck or f*ck, the fact that they're merely synonymous for each one's other defeats the purpose of "censoring" a word by replacing one letter with an arbitrary symbol or referring to the word in whole by it's first letter.

tl;dr: S my D

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ldD_4Puw6RM

It didn't require any discipline to attain.

>businessman creates amazing thing to sell to people
>does it to make money
Shocking.

Language encodes more than just words and their intended meaning. IRL self-censoring could be a result of the speaker's relationship with the listener or the social situation or surroundings where the conversation is occurring, something is compelling a certain degree of restraint on the part of the speaker, but he also wants to inject a degree of vulgarity into the conversation. On Veeky Forums it's probably just an attempt to generate replies. Either way it's indicating something about this situation is different from where one would normally use the word that is being substituted for.

This so much. Ignore the brainlets dude. I personally love a good swearing session but I can't help from judging real hard when someone I know who pretends to be "proper" in speech lets off some childish veil of a real curse. "Crackers!" "Cripes!" are you mad or not? How disingenuous can you get?

This is the most autistic thread I've seen on Veeky Forums in ages. Thanks for the laugh, lads

>>believing that a comedians' sketch is indicative of popular opinion

i dont care about the swearing debate. just swear who gives a fuck.

this is actually arguable tho. bar a polling of everybodies' opinion via survey, it is arguable that youtube clips' popularity indicates something about what is said during that joke people value. then to argue why is another step based on your assumptions about people.

so if you think people like to watch things that confirm their world view (a guiding principle in the entertainment industry btw) then yeah you can argue it does represent popular opinion.

as a second degree affirmation to actually polling people.

i would argue noticeably higher than the mean affirmation rate on a random topic.

Hammond was definitely different in the book vs. the movie. I think they took his negative traits and pushed them onto the lawyer in the movie; if I recall correctly, the lawyer was actually a good guy in the book.

>I just dont like swearing all the time
>I visit a mongolian basket weaving forum