It deals with concepts such as the pitfalls of contentness, justification of terrorist acts, how the mean fascists are normal people that "are probably nice to their kids".
And you would show this in a 2:30 long trailer how exactly?
Uh, you don't. That was my point: You can't accurately draw the conclusion the OP got from the trailer.
"It's that horrible word: intellectual. I mean, you have to think about the movie"
What? They laid out the entire plot in the trailers (or so we're led to believe). Facist, authoritarian government. Agents of whom attempt to rape Portman. "Good" guy rescues/befriends her. He's doing the whole "government is evil, I'm gonna blow it up, yo" and she's doing the "I'll die for you, yo. I am stretched on your grave, I'll lie here forever, yo." The government is all "Your ass is ours, yo."
What part of that requires any "thought"? The fact that it's blatantly playing off how fascist US/UK government has become?
This may be an accurate depiction of the story the movie tells, but it is doing the graphic novel a grave disservice. The plot in the graphic novel -- particularly the part about Evey (Portman) in prison -- is only superficially similar to what you've identified. It deals with concepts such as the pitfalls of contentness, justification of terrorist acts, how the mean fascists are normal people that "are probably nice to their kids".
So unless the script has been changed significantly (and there's reason to believe that it has; I haven't read the script), the plot was certainly not entirely laid out in the trailers.
The flaw in your analogy is clear: Accidents happen and bottles can break, releasing the illicit substance. There is nothing the player can do short of a direct and intentional modification that causes this code to become active.
Libertarianism is just a way of justifying the actions of a priviliged minority by trying to hide all evil and suffering in the world behind the spectre of "government". If something bad happens, no matter what it was, either the government did it or it wasn't really bad.
No.
Libertarianism is by nature relativistic. If an individual holds some action to be evil or bad then he may still be fully compatible with the philosophy so long as he does not force others to support his views.
Please don't spread stupid FUD like this. I know that "trying to hide all evil and suffering in the world behind the spectre of 'government'" is a great soundbite, but it's provably false given any reasonable definition of Libertarianism, and it lowers the quality of political discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, you don't. That was my point: You can't accurately draw the conclusion the OP got from the trailer.
Graphic novel? That would be, like, a comic, right?
Yes.
define: graphic novel
This may be an accurate depiction of the story the movie tells, but it is doing the graphic novel a grave disservice. The plot in the graphic novel -- particularly the part about Evey (Portman) in prison -- is only superficially similar to what you've identified. It deals with concepts such as the pitfalls of contentness, justification of terrorist acts, how the mean fascists are normal people that "are probably nice to their kids".
So unless the script has been changed significantly (and there's reason to believe that it has; I haven't read the script), the plot was certainly not entirely laid out in the trailers.
The flaw in your analogy is clear: Accidents happen and bottles can break, releasing the illicit substance. There is nothing the player can do short of a direct and intentional modification that causes this code to become active.
This makes absolutely no difference because the content is just as inaccessible to the player.
Libertarianism is by nature relativistic. If an individual holds some action to be evil or bad then he may still be fully compatible with the philosophy so long as he does not force others to support his views.
Please don't spread stupid FUD like this. I know that "trying to hide all evil and suffering in the world behind the spectre of 'government'" is a great soundbite, but it's provably false given any reasonable definition of Libertarianism, and it lowers the quality of political discussion.