Raf

Ok, so you have a US comedy that stuck around long enough to wear out its welcome (eight seasons). Its stars are famous primarily because of their roles in this show. Two went on to star in other shows, so it's not like their careers just vanished. But still. They are remembered primarily for this one. One supporting star was famous before this show and is better remembered for his role in the earlier show. He was not an original cast member. He was brought in to replace two actors who went on to star in their own spinoff, which did not do well. The two actors he replaced are primarily remembered for this show. Of the original cast, there is one surviving member who is pretty much known solely for this role. Three title cast members survive. All are women. All are known primarily (if at all) for their role in this series. Only one of the cast members joined the spinoff. Now, once you realize the name of the series, the earlier clues should tell you the name of the spinoff even if you don't remember it.

Well that's a fine "so what?"

Let's try this chronologically. There was once a British TV comedy series. It was almost named for the second half of a well-known proverb (not a biblical proverb. Just a well-known expression, an aphorism, in the vein of "All's well that ends well"). So this British TV comedy ALMOST had the same name as the second half of this pithy saying. It ended up with a completely different name, and it was a hit. It eventually got a spinoff with another completely different name. The British spinoff was also a hit. In the US, they decided to adapt the original series for American audiences. To name this series, they turned to the same pithy expression that almost provided the original British series with its name. Instead of looking at the second half of the expression, they took the first half and tweaked it, turning it into a pun of its original meaning. So the US series was a huge hit, making stars of its entire main cast, many of whom are primarily known for their roles on this series to this day (one was quite famous BEFORE he was cast to replace a departing cast member, but the rest became famous for this series). Eventually, the series wore out its welcome, but the lead actor was still a popular star believed to be the glue that held the series together. So they gave him a spinoff with the same premise as the spinoff to the British series. To name the spinoff, they went back to the same pithy expression and took the second half, the same title that was first pitched for the original British series. Unlike the British spinoff, the American spinoff flopped. Name the American spinoff.

Hoping this one is easy. I'm looking for the name of a SPINOFF of a successful TV series whose name is a play on the first half of a popular expression. This spinoff's name IS the second half of that same expression. Both are comedies. The original series is actually an American adaptation of a successful British tv comedy. That comedy originally had the name of what would later become the American spinoff. The British version also had a spinoff with an unrelated name. Yes, the American spinoff was an adaptation of the British spinoff. However: The British spinoff was a big hit, while the American spinoff is routinely listed among the worst spinoffs of all time.

So you know how they say you shouldn't argue with people on the Internet because no one changes their mind? Not exactly true. Sometimes people do change their mind (I mean, look at me), but more often, you'll be exposed to a new way of looking at an issue that you had not previously considered. For example, I tried to convey the thought in previous posts that a judgment can be subjective even if it is universally shared (like one actress being more attractive than another). Turns out there's a word for that, one that has been used on GSC before (but it's been about 16 years). Someone on threads tried to convince me that morality is objective because of something called "intersubjective objectivity." As first I thought he was babbling, but when I looked it up, I realized this perfectly articulated my feelings on morality: Intersubjective objectivity is when you have a subjective judgment and it widely, widely shared. Like, widely to the point where if someone disagrees, you have to question that person's sanity. Like, "E.T. was a better movie than Mac and Me," or "Celine Dion is a better singer than Yoko Ono." I mean, these are opinions, but you'd be hard pressed to find a sane person who disagrees. We treat such opinions as objective, even though they are not. That is "intersubjective objectivity," a term that I do not employ because I find it misleading (as it is not objectivity at all. It is an alternative to objectivity). I prefer to just call it what it is: Intersubjectivity. Morality is not objective. It is intersubjective. Murder and rape are not objectively evil. But the subjective judgment that they are evil is so pervasive that they might as well be objectively evil. They are intersubjectively evil. You may still find the odd person who disagrees. We call them sociopaths. We have a vested interest in protecting ourselves from such people.

SNL

La Vie! You're up. [for the record, WW's answer is the South American pronunciation of "Scream"]

I just watched that, too! "Do you like scary movies?"

Traxx.

For the record, I was going with Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder (which I hear daily, living in the tropical climate of South Florida).

Ah, I would hazard a guess but I have to go out and cover some stuff I left outside. Those daily afternoon storms, let me tell you. Just like clockwork here in Florida. Looking forward to the answer to this one, WW.

Does the title of this movie refer to something I might hear on a daily basis?

Fun fact: Chuck Wagner (Automan) performed the role of Jekyll/Hyde for the national tour of the 1997 Broadway musical. And he was really good.

I mean I TRIED

Definitely not 98.6. 101? 105?

Yes, I picked quotes that I felt made it clear we were talking about Norman Bates but also that time had passed since the first movie. Or so I thought. I'm also taking an extended break from games, in case that was not clear.

I am choosing not to micromanage this thread. If the Christians are ok having their faith questioned outside the questioning faith forum, cool. But for precedent's sake, let's not make a habit of it.

Yes, but honestly, did he seem like he had the slightest idea what he was talking about?

Charity, I think you can get a pass on calling the idea of punishment by immolation "abhorrent." I don't think that's an atheist conclusion and I do think a significant number of Christians share it. I suggest in the future you could add a qualifier to make it clear that you're interjecting your feelings, ("abhorrent to me") to make the statement a little more diplomatic. I will leave it to the page's Christians to determine whether you crossed a line in their view. In mine, you did not. But I will yield to our brethren of faith ...

Quantitative: countable. We have a soul. One. It's a thing. Not part of our imagination. Immeasurable: it doesn't have weight or mass. There's nothing about a soul that science can point to, independent of the body, in order to demonstrate its presence. It might be easier if I asked you what a soul is, independent of the body. I'm suggesting that St. Thomas Quinas' meditations on the soul carry no more weight in the real world than George Lucas' notes on how The Force works. (If you can think of a polite way for me to say that, I'm all ears)

My apologies to you personally. I thought I was clear that this was as a species, not a criticism directed at you personally. I thought I was as far from singling you out as I could possibly be. But it is inherent in our opposing views that we will occasionally step on each other's toes. So allow me to rephrase, please, in a way that does not insult anyone directly or indirectly: Again with my apologies, is that better?

Since this is the "atheism" side of the fence as far as conversation goes, it's not off topic to posit that the soul simply does not exist. It is a function of the body, the name we give to this complex firing of synapses that I cannot begin to articulate because of its chemical complexity, but when the body stops, so does the soul. We believe that for almost literally every other animal. But in our arrogance as a species, we imagine ourselves to be an exception. We, alone in the animal kingdom, possess a quantitative, immeasurable attribute that contains our personality and will survive the cessation of our physical bodies. I know, the alternative is to have "no hope," and that leads to a feeling of, well, hopelessness. Then again, 10 trillion trillion years from now, I will not be burning in hell, so I have that going for me.

The topic of this thread is objective v subjective morality, not objective truth claims v. subjective truth claims, a whole different subject.

We would have to restrict any references to the land post 1948. We would have to keep it in doctrinal (since in this forum too many of us would just say "No, God didn't give you the land, stop using ancient fairy tales as an excuse for what you want to accomplish in the 21st Century." So the question would have to be, "do you believe modern day Israel has a claim to the promises recorded in Genesis and/or the Bible. To avoid politics, the answer would be Yes or No followed by an analysis of what the Bible has to say about the subject (the closest we could get to modern politics is establishing that modern Jews are the descendants of ancient Jews and Arthur Koestler was proved wrong by DNA).

A corollary of my point is that all morality is subjective by definition, including God's, assuming his existence. Objective morality, in that framework, is merely acceding to HIS subjective morality, which would be as perfect as we presume Him to be.