Adderbox76
I wouldn’t call this “inconsequential”, but not only is Deckard a Replicant, he’s a very specific Replicant.
Gaff (played by Eddie Olmos) was the original officer assigned to hunting down the escaped replicants, before Holden and before Deckard. When the escaped Androids originally tried to storm the Tyrell corporation, one of them got “fried” going through an electric fence. And it was either there, or in another encounter, that Gaff was wounded in the leg, forcing Holden to take over the case, and we know where that ended up…
I posit that the android that got “fried”, didn’t actually get fried. In concert with the Tyrell corporation, they programmed him with Gaff’s memories in order to finish the job, which is why Gaff is chaperoning him, driving him around; to make sure the memory implant holds. It’s why Gaff seems to know what he’s thinking and can make origami to give him hints. It’s why Gaff at the end of the movie says “You’ve done a man’s work”. And it’s why Gaff is such a dick to him. Imagine chaperoning your artificial replacement around that everyone thinks can do just as good a job as you…
I always watch Blade Runner from that perspective. At least until the sequel came out and ruined it for me.
Or maybe, just maybe, Europe has been around for soooo much longer than America that they’ve reached the age where they realize that there are other priorities in life than just the accumulation of wealth. Like enjoying life, having a work/life balance, socializing with one’s friends and family.
Perpsectives change when your history as a country is longer than a few hundred years.
No. It’s called the Paradox of Tolerance. “Discussing” rationally with the intolerant only serves to justify their position in their own eyes and thereby embolden them.
In other words, putting up with them simply gives them more ink
Turning the other cheek only works if the person doing the slapping has a sense of shame. Trump and his ilk have long since proven they have none.
Logic does not rely on assumptions. It relies on making deductions about what is probable when faced with the current knowledge.
I see what you are meaning, but it’s a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. Base Assumptions never come into play.
The hypothesis comes from the existing evidence, not the other way around.
For example, Eratosthenes didn’t have an “assumption” that the earth was round and then said, “hmmm…how shall we test this?” Rather, he had heard from someone or other that at noon is a certain city, there was no shadow. While in another city, there was a shadow being cast by objects. He started to logically deduce why that could be. He had his evidence, that in one city to the south, no shadow, and in another city, a shadow of 7 degrees at the same time of day. He knew the distance between the two cities and deduced not only that the earth was round, but it’s size as well.
No gut assumptions necessary.
…pursue acquiring that family
That’s just such a weird creepy incel way to word that…
The unsealed documents make it clear that lawyers by and large were telling him over and over again in 2020 that the election was not stolen. My hope is that lawyers, I’m assuming most of whom have read those documents, tell him to pound sand when he approaches them this time around and as a result the loser just ends up shouting into the wind.
-
Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins (metaphorically speaking)
-
“Facts” and “Beliefs” do not share equal weight in ANY policy discourse.
-
Whatever your religious beliefs (and you are welcome to them) stays at home when you are doing business or in any other way interacting with the public.
