More you might like
The Avengers cast answer that age-old puzzle... the chicken or the egg.
- Interviewer: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
- Robert Downey Jr: Well I would assume we are talking about chickens here, as in plural? It does take two to tango... yeah, so definitely the egg. *Grins*.
- .
- Interviewer: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
- Samuel L. Jackson: Are you kidding me? *Looks to the side at someone beyond camera*. He's kidding me right. Oh you're not kidding me. Yeah, well definitely one of the strangest questions I've been asked. Okay then. It's the chicken. Why? Well, here's one for you then. Why did the chicken cross the street? Yeah, you heard me!
- .
- Interviewer: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
- Mark Ruffalo: Wow, that's a deep question. Can't we discuss the hulk smashing things up? Right, okay, well I'm going to say the egg. Because who said the egg had to be a chicken's egg? And dinosaurs were first and they laid eggs.
- .
- Interviewer: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
- Chris Evans: Okay. Erm. Would go for the chicken. Without a chicken there can't be an egg. Right?
- .
- Interviewer: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
- Jeremy Renner: Good question. Scarlett?
- Scarlett Johansson: Oh no no no, you can't pass the buck to me. *Slaps Jeremy lightly on the shoulder*. Okay, isn't this something to do with the universe beginning?
- Jeremy: Yeah, so that's the chicken then.
- Scarlett: Okay, there you go - the chicken!
- .
- Interviewer: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
- Cobie Smulders: Oh, definitely the chicken.
- Clark Gregg: No, I would have to say the egg.
- Cobie: Why the egg?
- Clark: Because you said chicken. *Flaps arms and makes chicken phwarp phwarp sounds*.
- Cobie: Oh good chicken.
- Clark: Yeah, can I have some fries with that?
- Cobie: Ahahahaha.
- .
- Interviewer: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
- Chris Hemsworth: I dunno mate. Isn't that, like, a deep question? Ask Tom, he would probably be able to tell you. But as it's a toss-up fifty/fifty I'll go with the chicken.
- .
- Interviewer: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
- Tom: My goodness, I have never been asked that question before. That's a good question. Well of course such a question poses many possibilities. I think if I remember correctly... erm this question was first posed by some of our great philosophers.
- Interviewer:
- Tom: Wasn't it Aristotle who said both chicken and egg must have existed at the same time? Erm, no child can ever be born without a parent because it goes against nature. I think that's what he said.
- Interviewer:
- Tom: I remember reading somewhere that Stephen Hawking decided that the egg came before the chicken but I can't remember his argument for it. I suppose I better reread it. Ehehehehe.
- Interviewer:
- Tom: But then of course there is the question of the egg and the chick being a metaphor to the beginnings of the Universe. Something can never come from nothing although The Big Bang Theory can of course be an allusion to that.
- Interviewer:
- Tom: And the Bible which states that God created all creatures which would imply that the chicken definitely came first.
- Interviewer:
- Tom: Wow, this is a very interesting and deep question. I definitely couldn't presume to make a blanket statement either for or against when there are so many factors involved.
- Interviewer:
- Tom: And oh, then there's Plato. He wrote there is nothing new in the Universe. So when Earth started to exist both the chicken and the egg would have been there, waiting, in spirit.
- Interviewer:
- Tom: *Drums fingers on chin and stares at ceiling*. I remember...
- Interviewer: *Sticks out hand for Tom to shake*. Sorry Tom but I have to go interview, erm, someone else.
- Tom: Oh, oh sure. Thank you very much. Really great interview, man. *Shakes hand*.
every episode of house
[intro of someone doing a normal day-to-day activity with someone else around. suddenly the camera goes blurry and the audio gets all distorted. they collapse, it cuts to black, the theme plays]
—-
cuddy: there’s this case. it’s weird because of these weird things. you might be interested
house: *limping through a hallway* im not interested
cuddy: but there IS this EXTRA weird thing about the case that i’m just mentioning as a side note
house: *grabs all the files out of her hand* i’ll do it
—-
[house, cameron, foreman, and chase are in house’s office. house is at the whiteboard]
house: the symptoms are this, this, this, and this. what could it be?
chase: well it could be [fairly common disease]
house: come on! think outside the box!
cameron or foreman: well…… i guess it COULD be [much more obscure disease]
house: now THAT makes sense. put them on [medication for obscure disease].
—-
[cameron, chase, or foreman are with the patient in the patient’s room]
cameron/chase/foreman: well, good news– you seem to be responding to treatment.
patient: *smiles* that’s great!
cameron/chase/foreman: and you can go home in a few days! *turns away briefly to write something on a clipboard*
[suddenly the patient starts shaking and convulsing and the monitor starts beeping really loud and fast]
cameron/chase/foreman: THEY’RE SEIZING! *GRABS PATIENT* ATIVAN, STAT!
[it cuts to black with the monitor still going crazy]
—-
[house, cameron, chase, and foreman are back in house’s office with the whiteboard]
house: *snarkily* the treatment isn’t working. clearly it’s not [the first obscure disease]. any ideas?
cameron: it could be [another obscure disease], but this one symptom doesn’t match up.
house: it it possible……. our treatment could have caused that symptom?
cameron: oh my god…… yeah it’s definitely possible. get them on [medication for the second obscure disease] and [medication to reverse effects of the first medication], stat.
—-
[a shot of the patient wheezing and looking pale while hooked up to a bunch of tubes is shown. house looks in through the window to the room thoughtfully]
house: this treatment isn’t working either. at this rate they’ll be dead by tomorrow morning.
chase/cameron/foreman: we’ve tried everything……….
house: *sees something completely random in the hallway* *suddenly looks REALLY thoughtful* wait a minute……..
chase/cameron/foreman: what?
house: *explains a disease that’s even more obscure than the first two and that is vaguely related to the random hallway thing*
chase/cameron/foreman: well, if you’re wrong, the treatment will kill them.
house: only one way to find out…….
—-
[shot of medicine dripping into the iv, then fade to black]
[shot of patient looking significantly better, smiling and laughing]
chase/cameron/foreman: i can’t believe it worked……
house: *to the patient* we’ll have you home by tomorrow.
patient: thank you so much. *says something wise and deep that is vaguely related to house’s current emotional state*
house: *looks pensive*
[fade to black]
into the spider-verse has some of the most dynamic, fluid, colorful, beautiful, and expressive animation i’ve seen in years
dreamworks and disney and etc etc have all been fighting each other to see who can animate the most eyelashes and make fabric swish right in the wind
animation has just become a contest to see who can mimic real life (which kind of defeats the purpose lol)
FINALLY an animated film that celebrates its medium!! animation was meant to push the boundaries and express ideas and add visuals real life couldn’t! thank you!!
Thought: I do NOT think that 50% of the world’s billionaires should be women. I think there shouldn’t be any billionaires at all.
So you are saying 0% of the world should be billionaires?
Yes.
Why shouldn’t their be billionaires? That makes no sense.
Because the existence of billionaires is predicated on the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable environmental harm. That level of wealth hoarding is harmful to economies, as it reduces the amount of money in circulation. No one person, no family, could ever conceivably even SPEND a billion dollars anyway, and it is inherently immoral to accumulate wealth so narrowly while so much of the world lives in abject poverty.
Better then to create a wealth ceiling, a point at which all wealth over a certain point is taxed at or very near 100% to incentivize people to actually spend their money rather than hoard it, stimulating the economy and bettering the lives of far more people. Better even still to create and regulate economic systems that protect workers and the environment in a way that such extreme levels of wealth accumulation aren’t even feasible.
The problem with this is that it reduces the incentive to actually do fiscally well. What’s the point of starting a business if you can’t become wealthy?
There is a very real difference between “reasonably wealthy” and A BILLIONAIRE
No one is saying you shouldn’t have a nice house, we are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously nice houses while your employees are either homeless or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral.
I’ll never understand why this concept is hard for people. I think it’s because they can’t actually fathom how much $1 Billion is.
Seriously.
Let’s say you have a badass job. A great job. You make $100 AN HOUR. You work 10 hours a day ($1000 A DAY), 5 days a week ($5000 a week!!!), every week ($20,000 A MONTH), thats $240,000 Every Year.
It would take you 4,167 years to make a billion dollars.
in therapy my therapist and i were talking about my own feelings of self worth in relationships. and she asked me to say qualities about myself that someone else would be attracted to, on a romantic and platonic level. so i named some things like compassionate, empathetic, etc. and she said “you named things that you can give someone. ways you can serve, rather than ways that you are” and y'all..my mind was blown that’s gonna stick with me forever like she then proceed to tell me actual innate qualities about myself that she liked and thought anyone else would like as well and i hadn’t even considered those because like she said i was focused on things i could do outwardly to attract and maintain connections rather than who i was as a person..goddamn!!! thats tea!!!
With this in mind, this also makes me think of the ways people describe us. When people say the reasons that they love/like you or describe you as a person, are they only naming ways that you serve them? Are they equating your worth with how much you do for them?
ex. “You’re such a good listener. You’re so generous, you’re so compassionate. You’re always there for me. You always hold me down. You’re reliable”
vs.
“You’re so funny! You’re very vibrant. You’re creative, passionate, and intelligent. You’re optimistic. You’re so talented at ____” , etc. I think that’s very telling.
sensiblyillogical