Comments on: Natalie Portman Loses Real-Life Game of Apples to Apples

By: Please Pick Stripping or Speaking, Natalie Portman . . . at Deceiver.com

Please Pick Stripping or Speaking, Natalie Portman . . . at Deceiver.com — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:20:08 +0000

[...] interviews months in advance, your personal values are “flexible,” and you are prone to grotesque hyperbolic statements, keep a journal to track your morals from day to day. Then track when the interviews will be [...]

By: Pearce

Pearce — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:56:59 +0000

Can we just start a “people who signed the Polanski petition are dumbasses who should never reproduce” petition?

By: Lonna Cottrell

Lonna Cottrell — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:22:51 +0000

Is there a Keep Roman Behind Bars petition I could sign, or should I start one?
And Natalie need more B12.

By: Lee

Lee — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:15:29 +0000

So brilliant! I love how you eviscerated her with your logic! Thanks for a great blog!

By: Beige

Beige — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:15:30 +0000

Great Caesar’s ghost. That little blurb made about as much sense as a Duran Duran lyric. Look, Nat-Nat: We don’t pay you to think, honey. It wastes your time and I don’t like the smell of burning hair, so knock it off, m’kay? Come to think of it, we should probably pay her NOT to talk.

Is she seriously implying that the defining characteristic of a human is how one rationalizes one’s diet?

It MUST be what she’s saying. What she’s NOT saying: That the defining characteristic of a human is how–or whether–one rationalizes sexual assaults on children.

By: AllyKat

AllyKat — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:03:08 +0000

Oh Catharine. We plebians can’t possibly understand her brilliance. You see, since we tolerate eating meat, we must therefore tolerate rape, so she HAD to sign the Polanski petition. Or is it the other way around? This thinking stuff is hard!!

Read the Jezebel article, and I have to say, I find it hard to consider any argument “impassioned” or “persuasive” if the person uses such convoluted comparisons that don’t even make sense as individual sentences. “But he reminds us that being a man, and a human, takes more thought than just ‘This is tasty, and that’s why I do it.’” Is she seriously implying that the defining characteristic of a human is how one rationalizes one’s diet? The saying that reason separates man from the beasts is not a reference to vegetarianism. It does make a good argument for considering Portman as a beast, as she clearly has no sense of reason.

And really, I don’t think even Polanski holds gang rapes at dinner parties.

By: Catharine

Catharine — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:14:01 +0000

My God. I think I just agreed with something Bill Maher said.
When your voice of reason is BILL freakin’ MAHER, you need help.

And PS, NP’s statement makes no sense when you try to read and analyze it as a whole. It has no proper topic cohesion and flow of words. All that money and she can’t write a coherent paragraph stating her opinion?

By: mEEEE

mEEEE — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:42:08 +0000

You know, the more these pompous Ivy League idiots spout senseless BS, the prouder I am of my 3rd rate bachelor’s & grad school degrees.

By: Ln

Ln — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:22:37 +0000

SG – it’s not murder it’s rape. Please get the inferences correct, otherwise we sound like a shallow, insecure idiot.

By: StrawberryGirl

StrawberryGirl — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:39:33 +0000

What a sad and confused person you must be if you can muster more moral indignation over someone munching on a three-piece chicken meal than you could over a young girl being raped by an evil old perv. (I guess in her eyes, what happened to that 13-year-old wasn’t “rape rape.”)

Hard to believe at one time I actually liked this chick. She has become more and more a self-righteous bore who obviously thinks she’s better than the rest of us.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to think of what tasty, tasty murder I’m going to have for dinner tonight.