“porque las vigas que arrojó no eran claras ni semejantes a las que está acostumbrada a arrojar.”

A lot of people are complaining that they are not making All Star superman into a movie, how it is some sort of ultimate, perfect version of Superman.

No, I meant... Tony might create another super-powered artificial intelligence... and he did! He had not way of knowing it would turn out good... Plus, even if Tony hadn’t created the Vision... what about his personal responsibility for creating Ultron? He did create the bad guy that killed quite a lot of people. Even…

You may need the help of a bank thieves to know where they hid the money, but you still throw them in jail. Clarice needed Hannibal Lecter’s help to stop another serial killer, but she didn’t set him free.

“The team was upset that such a major decision was made without them”. They were upset? Ultron, that thing Tony Stark created, has killed people... and they are upset? Why isn’t Tony thrown in jail immediately after Ultron makes himself known to them... this is what I ask... not if they were ‘upset’!

I’m not asking how others contain them... I’m asking how they police themselves... why doesn’t Thor or Captain America oppose Stark effectively (They do the pouting and glaring, but they never stop him)? Why doesn’t Nick Fury stop them from creating superpowerful AI of dubious allegiance?

I get it now, good point. But every interpretation of an imaginary character is pulled out of someone’s ass: Superman didn’t even fly at first!

So tell me, since the Avengers are so righteous? How do they punish Tony Stark for creating an AI that tries to destroy the world? How is Banner contained after the hulk’s rampage for that matter?

Wait, is this the same movie where the hulk destroys a city and another one is destroyed by Ultron? The same Ultron that was created by Tony Stark in the first place?

Uhm... could be, sure, why not? But there are 7 billion people in the world, even if only a small percentage will find severe tissue damage attractive, it's still more than zero. I mean, I hope.

I agree: there must be a magnificent, PORTENTOUS blend of ugliness that indeed transcends cultural associations, time and space… and time again. However, as you said (as I THINK you said): for us, the lesser uglies (who can only aspire to attain those levels of unsightliness), there will be SOMEONE who finds us…

I don’t think ‘ugly’ is universal. There is great variation on what is deemed (un)attractive through time and across cultures. To name a few examples: being tan is deemed attractive, but it has been deemed ugly (or undesirable) in the past; body types considered beautiful in Roman times are not the body types that…

“If I thought there was some god who really did care two hoots about people, who watched ’em like a father and cared for ’em like a mother…well, you wouldn’t catch me sayin’ things like ‘there are two sides to every question’ and ‘we must respect other people’s beliefs.’ You wouldn’t find me just being gen’rally nice…

Gah, once I got from work and I could hear the neighbour who lives in the flat at the end of the hall sort of moaning 'OH BILL! Biiiiiillllll!' (coincidentally, Bill was the name of the caretaker). I didn't think much of it, I was new in the building and didn't know my neighbours well... anyways, this went on for some…

Good call, as long as he knows how to properly clean himself (it takes like 5 seconds) he should be fine... seriously, this is a non-issue outside the US.

So, if it's not removal of the head, but of another part of the genitalia, it's fine by you... you can take any part of a person's genitalia without their consent and it's fine by you, as long as it is not the head... ooook then.

Seriously, it's not as if people were innecessarily removing a part of a person's genitalia without their consen—-WOOPS.