@livelove_elbow@boreddeleuzian It’s clearly empirical in essence because it makes fewer assumptions.
Let me ask you a question: if you have just the relevant medical records: do you know if a neonatal sex assignment was based on observation or not?
Not what should’ve happened - what did happen
@livelove_elbow@boreddeleuzian No, their approach is clear and empirically accurate, making fewer assumptions than yours. It’s why they can continually make straightforward logical statements which are internally consistent whereas your approach assumes an idealised form.
Another masterful @CountBinface interview. Joyously for the first thirty seconds you can hear John Craig in the background on the line to @SkyNews HQ complaining that he’d been bullied into interviewing Binface a few minutes earlier 😂👇
@twistedtardis Seeing her again makes me remember I could never shake the feeling they wrote her character specifically for Shohreh Aghdashloo but she said no.
@Bullittindahead Connery WAS an early part of the workout revolution.
He’s far more muscular in Dr No (and they have the radiation shower scenes to show his body off!)
By Goldfinger, he’s established in two prior movies, and has a burgeoning career outside of Bond (Marnie, etc)
@MuseZack It’s just a stupid argument. Of course you had young looking leading men starring in movies in the Sixties, but they were starring in types of movies that just don’t get made anymore like Peter McEnery in Disney’s The Moonspinners