How does Mila Kunis, one of the hottest women in Hollywood, feel about voicing Meg, one of the most shat-upon characters in cartoon history?
>>77951444
She gets off getting called ugly.
>>77951444
Pretty good because my career is over.
Source: am Mila Kunis.
I dunno, ask her.
I wonder how she felt about being the worst character in That 70's Show.
>>77951538
She played the annoying guy that showed up in the last season to replace eric?
>>77951498
Come to think of it, I haven't seen her in a movie in awhile.
>>77951568
She was in Jupiter Ascending, one of the biggest bombs of the year.
>>77951568
She was in that Jim Beam commercial a few months back.
>>77951538
Who is Eric's sister?
>>77951444
half the reason the whole meg getting shit on was because voicing meg was a paycheck to her and the writers took joy in humiliating her and they kept ratcheting it up trying to get a response out of her.
>>77951825
I thought it was because Meg was viewers' least favorite characters in the early seasons, so the writers ran that shit into the ground by making everyone hate her in-universe.
>>77951825
>implying writers can hurt a VA when treating their character badly
wow autism much?
>>77951661
Laurie
>>77951444
Hottest women in hollywood?
She's objectively attractive, but does nothing for me and in OP's picture looks like a sunbleached jersey shore whore.
I never liked seeing her in liveaction and never really enjoyed her voice, but I'm troubled in figuring out if this is because Family Guy made me hate Meg and by extension I hate her, or if I genuinely just dislike her because of her blandness and omnipresence.
>>77951538
Eric's replacement was by far the worst
>>77951444
She probably feels payed
>>77951444
I've heard some people actually say to her face Shut Up Meg.
To be honest I find Meg more attractive then Mila
>>77952025
>but does nothing for me and in OP's picture looks like a sunbleached jersey shore whore
How dare you speak such of a way of the Slavic master race women.
She's probably just drunk on whiskey and doesn't care.
>>77952354
But that's pretty much her look
>>77952491
I like how not a single one of them were even from jersey, and were all from new york.
They're trying to copy the Butters effect, and not doing a very good job.
>>77952540
As if there's a meaningful distinction. Everyone is human garbage up there.
>>77951825
>She only cares about the money, huh? Well, we're going to keep giving her money! That'll show her!
>>77952491
Snookie actually looks fucking hot in the rare case you catch her without 8 inch thick makeup on.
>>77952540
I like how you actually care and know enough about the show to spout that fact out.
>>77951498
Well, Mila Kunis will always be my superstar.
>>77952491
At least this show and it's international knock-offs made a lot of guys get into shape and lift.
>>77953005
That seems like a neutral thing.
I mean sure if they were overweight getting in relative shape can be healthy, but lifting?
That's some dudebro logic you be spouting.
>>77953054
>but lifting?
What's wrong with lifting?
>>77951825
The other half is because she was forced upon the writers by the network, right? I recall the original plan was to have just Chris and Stewie as the only Griffin children, but FOX execs wanted a teenage daughter included. So they put her in but increasingly shat upon her because they didn't want her in the show in the first place.
>>77952822
>Snookie actually looks fucking hot in the rare case you catch her without 8 inch thick
"makeup" was not how I expected that sentence to end.
>>77951444
>one of the hottest women in Hollywood
>I've been told something over and over again so now I believe it
Nice brainwashing
>>77953076
Nothing.
There's just nothing inherently right about it either, so I don't consider it all that "good"
![425.Snooki.tg.011912[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5IBtjmn.jpg "425.Snooki.tg.011912[1].jpg")
>>77953353
not thag uy but I thought she was super hot back on that 70s show before she became a movie star
>>77953307
its true tho
>>77951538
Fez was shit
>>77953376
>There's just nothing inherently right about it either
AHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHA look at this little bitchboy
>>77952540
Do we really need another thread shitting on Jersey?
>>77953532
It's an epic meme.
>>77953600
epic meme from like 5 years ago maybe
>>77953481
How do I know with 100% certainty that the person behind this post is a fucking lard ass.
>>77953651
Look at dis le epic le hothead XD
>>77953481
I'm just saying maintaining a regular fitness regiment that includes lifting is tantamount to a hobby.
It can be beneficial, but not everyone has time in there life to dedicate to it, and many are in shape from a physically demanding job already.
I often hear what seems to be lifting elitism, and that just doesn't make sense, as lifting is not universally beneficial or necessary, and trying to fit it in an already crowded life can have more negative benefits than positive.
This is in no way reflective or justifying my own lifestyle, I'm purely talking from a theoretical standpoint.
I'm slender and have plenty of time to hit the gym, I just don't feel like taking up the hobbyload of bulking and lifting.
She gets paid to do a voice on one of the most popular shows on TV, and most of the time said voice requires less than three lines per episode.
Even if she absolutely despised the job, which is likely not the case, that's about as sweet a gig as you can get.
>>77951661
A dead bitch
>>77953376
>Nothing inherently right about watching what you eat, treating your body like a temple, and building confidence.
You're losing me anon.
>>77953891
Lifting doesn't inherently bestow you with confidence, it doesn't necessarily mean you're treating your body like a temple or well at all, and many don't diet properly and still lift.
If you really don't see what I'm getting at read
>>77953803
as I better explained my point there.
>>77954012
>Lifting doesn't inherently bestow you with confidence
http://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/exercise-depression
>>77951444
I don't think she's hot.
>how does she feel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeXatquVqAc
>>77954070
Anon, I'm aware of the linked benefits.
Maybe you're trying not to understand.
>Lifting doesn't inherently bestow you with confidence
>inherently bestow
It doesn't inherently do this.
My argument is lifting isn't inherently a good thing.
You can have a heart condition and lifting could be detrimental to your health.
Lifting is not a universal truth.
>>77953285
She wasn't Meg's original VA though.
>>77954090
Aaron Rodgers pls go
>>77954226
..so?
That literally has nothing to do with the anon's point you are quoting.
>>77954184
>You can have a heart condition and lifting could be detrimental to your health
omg and you could like, be alllergic to strawberries and that totally means strawberries aren't healthy at all
>>77954286
>Kunis was only 14 in the first season of That's 70s show
>>77953469
>Fez
>shit
Now that is bait if ive ever seen it. Surely you meant to say Fez was The shit right?
>>77954349
I was probably even younger at the time so there's nothing wrong with that. I think I was a senior in high school during the season with the new replacement Eric.
>>77954286
That's not what I'm saying.
I know that's an extremist example I gave, I gave a more reasonable example of how lifting could lack much benefit and be a detrimental timesink here >>77953803
My points are rational and being made in a respectful manner, and if you want to counter them I'd appreciate if you address them properly instead of countering little snippets out of context, as otherwise it's hard to have a real discussion.
I'm not trying to make a big point of lifting either way.
In the first place I was simply quoting an anon who implied lifting and getting in shape are both beneficial, and countering that getting in shape is INHERENTLY UNIVERSALLY beneficial while lifting isn't always a necessary lifechoice.
>>77954491
>I gave a more reasonable example of how lifting could lack much benefit and be a detrimental timesink here >>77953803
You just said someone might not have time for it. Which has nothing to do with whether or not it would be beneficial.
Then you said it doesn't bestow confidence, which is simply untrue.
The heart condition example is just the most ridiculous thing you pointed out, and so it received the most ridicule.
>>77954641
>You just said someone might not have time for it. Which has nothing to do with whether or not it would be beneficial.
I thought the implications of not having time for it were clear.
A lot of people have trouble finding the time to brush their teeth in the morning before work, let alone hit the gym on a regular basis.
As I've pointed out taking fitness seriously is usually tantamount to taking up a hobby, and such a timesink would often require sacrifices to make up for the time.. less time spent with friends, family, significant other, at work, resting, etc.
Taking time out for the gym when you don't desire it could be detrimental to your overall lifestyle and productivity.
I realize this is just one point but I think it's a rather large one. Taking up something that requires a regular routine to maintain is taxing regardless of what it is.
>Then you said it doesn't bestow confidence, which is simply untrue.
But anon.. I never said that. I was very clear about using the word INHERENTLY. Which means it 100% all the time is guaranteed to work. Working out is LINKED to benefits, but this does not 100% mean you will receive any of those depression boosting benefits from your workout, and even if you did the effects are not universal in their strength or effectiveness.
>The heart condition example is just the most ridiculous thing you pointed out, and so it received the most ridicule.
Fair enough, but it feels like you're purposely ignoring a rational argument by taking something out of context to make an easy target out of a well thought out point.
>>77954846
>I thought the implications of not having time for it were clear.
It's a stupid argument to make because I could make the same argument about anything. You even bring up brushing your teeth. Well, I could just as easily say I don't have time to brush my teeth every day, and according to you, that means teeth-brushing isn't good for me.
Or I could argue that I don't have time to have a job in the first place because I need all that time to spend with my family.
>Which means it 100% all the time is guaranteed to work
Again, an argument you could make about fucking anything.
>oh no, I quit smoking and still got cancer
>oh no, my husband wore a seatbelt and still died in a car crash.
>oh no, I didn't get addicted to meth and I still have wrinkles at age 40
>>77955034
>Well, I could just as easily say I don't have time to brush my teeth every day, and according to you, that means teeth-brushing isn't good for me.
That's not a solid parallel.
Brushing your teeth is INHERENTLY beneficial. Lifting is not.
Lifting is USUALLY beneficial.
>Again, an argument you could make about fucking anything.
No disrespect intended, but you don't seem to understand what the word inherently means, perhaps you should look it up.
Quitting smoking is INHERINTLY a healthier/safer choice than smoking.
Wearing a seatbelt is INHERINTLY a healthier/safer choice than not wearing one.
I don't even know why you keep responding to me anon, I feel like I'm talking in circles here.
The point I was making was very simple, "Getting in shape" is UNIVERSALLY BENEFICIAL, lifting is not always universally beneficial, though it is USUALLY beneficial.
>>77955195
First off m8, the whole inherent/usual/100%/some of the time whatever bullshit argument is one that you're having with yourself. Refer back to >>77953054. You started throwing around the word "inherent" only after being called out, as part of a motte and bailey strategy.
>Brushing your teeth is INHERENTLY beneficial
Nope, because there might be someone out there who lost all his teeth in a fight or some shit
>Quitting smoking is INHERINTLY a healthier/safer choice than smoking
nope, you could never smoke in your life and still die tomorrow for a million other reasons.
>Wearing a seatbelt is INHERINTLY a healthier/safer choice than not wearing one
Lol nope, if you never get into a car crash it won't matter if you had a seat belt or not.
>>77955424
It wasn't a bailout argument that I only came up with after being called out.
It was the entire point I was trying to make with my first post, I only further elaborated on it when asked for clarification. Perhaps I didn't use the word inherently until asked for clarification, but I did clarify my stance and use it before this started turning into a debate of any kind.
>Nope, because there might be someone out there who lost all his teeth in a fight or some shit
>nope, you could never smoke in your life and still die tomorrow for a million other reasons.
>Lol nope, if you never get into a car crash it won't matter if you had a seat belt or not.
Again you don't seem to understand the proper usage of inherently.
It's inherently unhealthy to not brush your teeth.
It is inherently dangerous not to wear a seatbelt.
It is NOT inherently dangerous to skip lifting.
It IS inherently dangerous to skip getting in shape.
You really have an axe to grind and I don't know why.
I really think we likely agree on this basic concept, you likely are just not defining the words in the same way I am, which is causing this to turn into an argument over semantics as you're ignoring my intended meaning.
>>77955833
>It's inherently unhealthy to not brush your teeth.
not if you don't have teeth
>It is inherently dangerous not to wear a seatbelt.
Not if you never ride in a car
>I really think we likely agree on this basic concept, you likely are just not defining the words in the same way I am
No, the point is you started saying "lifting is only for dudebros" and then changed your mind and said "no, what I REALLY meant was that lifting will not improve your QOL 100% of the time, regardless of any external factors, no matter what"
If there's anything we disagree on, it's your definitions of "clarification'' and "elaboration."
Making a controversial statement and then retreating and making a noncontroversial, and even useless statement when challenged isn't my idea of clarification. It's a motte and a bailey.
>>77951444
>that person
>hot
you've sure got some weird taste anon
>>77955941
>No, the point is you started saying "lifting is only for dudebros"
That's incorrect. I said the anon saying lifting is a good sounds like he's using dudebro logic.
I was then asked why I considered lifting bad, and I clarified I don't think it's either inherently good or bad.
I do think it's usually beneficial, but more on par with a helpful lifestyle improvement hobby like cooking classes or painting classes.
I don't think it's ESSENTIAL TO YOUR HEALTH like staying or shape or brushing your teeth is.
That is the only point I was trying to make anon, I'm sorry if you don't see it as such.
>>77953423
>>77953307
>>77952822
>mfw she's Gypsy
>>77956012
>yfw
>>77955941
Out of curiosity what is the more controversial statement you think I'm retreating from, because I still don't see it.
Do you really think I was trying to imply lifting is bad for your health?
I honestly think you're being a little hostile and maybe projecting or taking things out of context anon.
>>77954846
A lot of people are awful with time management and lazy too.
>>77951444
it probably prepared her for her future film career with Jud Apatow and the Wachowski brothers
>>77954435
No. not even that anon, but Fez and his annoying pervy almost-rapey desperation are literally in the same tier as notEric. At least he had the excuse of being a replacement.
>>77956092
>That seems like a neutral thing.
Regardless of you "but not 100% of the time!" or "not in this incredibly unusual case!" justifications, you have to be seriously delusional if you think lifting is just "neutral."
And the fact that calling it better than neutral is dudebro logic as well.
Also, this could just be my interpretation of it, but the guy you replied to said "get into shape and lift" and then you said "getting in relative shape can be healthy, but lifting?" Which I interpreted to mean that getting in shape is good but lifting is bad, so they cancel out to neutral.
>>77956188
Yeah I think I noticed my first post might have been a little unclear in it's wording, that's why I started using the word "inherently" so vigorously in my clarification attempt, so I would be more clear with my meaning.
And yeah, neutral is a bit of a gross simplification, I just meant it to be a comparison to the extremely positive benefits of being in shape being larger than the benefits of taking up lifting.
One's essential for a healthy lifestyle while the other is only helpful for one.
I apologize if some of my original meaning was lost in it's convenience, but I'm certainly not trying to double back on my statements and create a new point out of thin air now as previously implied.
>>77956290
Yeah well I'mm not about to argue about dictionary definitions and shit but I wouldn't say the word "inherent" lets you off the hook here. Especially when it comes to the whole confidence boosting/depression treating aspect.
>>77956365
I don't think I'm on the hook in the first place.
It was the intended entire crux of my argument from the start.
If my meaning was unclear in my first post, I immediately started using a definite concrete word to describe my intentions in the second post when I was asked for clarification.
From there in nearly every quoted post I brought up the word INHERENTLY in caps, trying to reclarify my meaning and make it clear, asking several times for the opposing anon to check the definition.
It could be any concrete word, and I tried many including "I don't think it's ESSENTIAL TO YOUR HEALTH" " UNIVERSALLY BENEFICIAL", etc.
I mean really anon, if you look back at the posts from this perspective you'll see I was really trying to argue this meaning the entire time and brought it up frequently.
>>77956506
I already said I'm not going to argue about what inherently means which is all we'd be doing at this point.
>thread about Mila Kunisi thought she was super qt in that 70s show
>derails into /fit/ posting
I dunno if I'm surprised or not anymore
>>77956624
You're ignoring the fact that I didn't just use the word inherently but that I also
>I tried many including "I don't think it's ESSENTIAL TO YOUR HEALTH" " UNIVERSALLY BENEFICIAL", etc.
While making several efforts to stress the definition I was using for the word and rephrase my meaning for comprehension.
You're also ignoring
>I mean really anon, if you look back at the posts from this perspective you'll see I was really trying to argue this meaning the entire time and brought it up frequently.
I don't want to turn this into a semantical argument, but that's exactly what happens when people ignore intended usage and instead focus on how that usage makes them feel.
I really thought I was thoroughly clear on my intentions and if there was any uncertainty I quickly defined my terms and tried rephrasing my point several times.
It feels like you're the only one who had difficulty understanding the points of my posts in this thread, and now you're trying to make it out like I'm an unclear doublebacking douchebag instead of simply admitting we had a miscommunication.
Fair enough anon, but the original point I was trying to express stands regardless of any of this fuss.
Getting in shape is essential to health, lifting is merely beneficial by comparison.
>>77957915
You trying to say "ESSENTIAL TO YOUR HEALTH" and "INHERENTLY BENEFICIAL" are the same?
The word essential didn't even come into play until the very end of this chain, so you're definitely motte-and-baileying if you're trying to say that's what you meant all along.
>>77958475
No I'm not saying those phrases are completely interchangeable.
Again this feels like you twisting it into a semantical argument, my meaning should be clear.
I've previously stated in the thread that lifting isn't "universally beneficial" "inherently beneficial" and that lifting isn't "essential to your health".
They aren't completely interchangeable, but in this context they were helping me to attempt to explain my intended meaning, which you stubbornly seem to keep trying to not understand, and instead redirect it to the words I use to express the meaning.
You're making this about semantics, you understand what I'm saying quite clearly.
tfw two fat pieces of shit arguing over pathetic this on the internet
oh wait
it's 4chan
>>77958601
>you understand what I'm saying quite clearly.
No I don't, because there wasn't a single person saying that lifting was essential or universal. Your arguing against some phantom opponent is definitely confusing.
>but in this context they were helping me to attempt to explain my intended meaning, which you stubbornly seem to keep trying to not understand
How does bringing in arguments against things that aren't being said help me understand what you meant?
>>77951870
>wow autism much?
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
>>77958729
I never started arguing with a phantom opponent.
I expressed a statement, perhaps a bit unclearly at first about excercise benefits compared to lifting. I was questioned about this and clarified, after which you countered me with a quip.
Ever since I've been defending my opinion while you try to tear it down and make this an argument to put me in the wrong. You clearly stated I wasn't "off the hook", implying I'm in the wrong.
I shouldn't be in the wrong for politely expressing a statement on my opinion on a matter.
After attempting to clarify my opinion several times you started making it clear you were ignoring rigid definitions I was using, at which point I had to bring the definition into question. That brings us to a cycle of arguing over semantics.
I don't want to argue anon, I'm just defending myself for expressing my opinions.
You seem really set on proving me wrong somehow and I don't understand why.
You seem to agree with the point I'm trying to get across (or at least that it's a valid stance to hold) since you haven't countered it, you've only torn me apart and raged for the manner in which I expressed my point.
Anon, if you'd be rational and look at this objectively, you're just being stubborn and arguing for the sake of arguing, while I'm arguing to defend a politely expressed stance on lifting.
This is going nowhere and I don't really care to continue bickering.
>>77958729
Also really? Phantom opponent? Come on seriously.
And you accuse me of doublebacking on my arguements?
You know we were both holding on a discussion or argument and expressing opinions.
You were attempting to directly call me out on several things, and kept criticizing my usage or way of expressing myself.
It's clear you set out to make yourself an opponent in an argument against me.
>>77951583
>>77951568
>>77951637
She was in Ashton Kucher's Babies: Part Deux most recently.
>>77955424
Aside from misspelling inherently several times and spelling it two different ways in the same post (which is hilarious), you used three examples which were logically flawed because none of them are true.
If you don't have teeth you can't brush them, therefore the question of dental hygiene is moot, but the question of general oral hygiene remains and will use a similar toolset for similar reasons - you don't stop getting gum disease if you don't clean your mouth just because you already lost your teeth, you just get worse diseases
Dying of non-smoking related causes does not equate to smoking being as healthy/safe or healthier/safer than non-smoking; it's about reduction of risk factors. You aren't safer running across roads just because you're out of traffic faster, you aren't safer drinking and driving just because you won't know what hit you, and so on.
There are many benefits to securing yourself into a car, and not crashing is just one of them; there are plenty of older vehicles (still roadworthy) that you can test this in because they don't have seatbelts and do have old-style bench seating; you do not want to go around corners in those fast. Again, this is about mitigation of risk rather than obviation; just because you're the one chimp in the test series who ate the blue food and didn't die doesn't mean you're the luckiest chimp and all those other chimps are chumps, it means you're going to be vivisected instead of autopsied.
tl;dr personal incredulity is still a fallacy even if you're too dumb to understand the reasons the world is the way it is. Also, your breath stinks even for a smoker, and your car is a deathtrap.
>>77959147
>Phantom opponent? Come on seriously
The phantom opponent being the guy who said that lifting is essential to your health. I don't know what else to call it when you bring that up as if that's what anyone was talking about.
>and kept criticizing my usage or way of expressing myself.
The more you "clarify" the less certain I am of what you're even trying to say. From what I gather, you've said the following things:
>lifting is not good
>lifting is not inherently good
>lifting is not essential to your health
>lifting is not something everyone has time for
I dunno, pick one
>>77959299
>>77959299
>Aside from misspelling inherently several times and spelling it two different ways in the same post (which is hilarious)
You mean the greentext parts? When I quote someone who misspelled a word, I'm misspelling it? wow
>the rest of that post
Do you not know what reductio ad absurdum is? Obviously I DO think that brushing your teeth is inherently healthy, I DO think wearing a seatbelt is inherently safe, and I DO think quitting smoking is inherently less risky than continuing to smoke. The whole point of me using those arguments was that I think they are stupid arguments in the same way that "lifting isn't good because a guy who doesn't have the spare time can't do it" is a bad argument.
>>77959589
>lifting is not good
>lifting is not inherently good
>lifting is not essential to your health
>lifting is not something everyone has time for
>I dunno, pick one
I don't have to. It was all part of the same point and thought process I was expressing.
>The phantom opponent being the guy who said that lifting is essential to your health
There is no phantom opponent.
I've only been arguing you and trying to say you're not clearly understanding what I'm trying to express.
You accused me of saying
>No, the point is you started saying "lifting is only for dudebros" and then changed your mind and said "no, what I REALLY meant was that lifting will not improve your QOL 100% of the time, regardless of any external factors, no matter what"
This was clearly never my intention or what I expressed.
You've been repeatedly arguing how it is either what I've expressed or I've expressed myself wrong since you've failed to initially understand me.
There is no phantom opponent, only you trying to bicker over someone expressing themselves because you don't like or initially understand the way they did it.
Fuck you anon, that kind of attitude is worse than if you were just trolling me.
>>77959810
>I don't have to. It was all part of the same point and thought process I was expressing.
Those are 4 different things, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. Either pick one concise position or don't be surprised when you end up in lengthy arguments and neither side is even sure what the argument is about.
>only you trying to bicker over someone expressing themselves
I'm only bickering about how you express yourself because you're being vague as fuck and trying to claim multiple positions and then when I try to pin down what you mean, you go "no, it isn't that" and then try to claim this vague collection of ideas as your position.
>>77960065
>I'm only bickering about how you express yourself because you're being vague as fuck and trying to claim multiple positions and then when I try to pin down what you mean, you go "no, it isn't that" and then try to claim this vague collection of ideas as your position.
I have no problem with that opinion, if you could have expressed that thought yourself just as cleanly and rationally as you said there, instead of being an argumentative dick and calling me out on multiple things and drawing me into a petty quibbles for hours on end.
But I understand, sometimes I feel like being argumentative too anon, you just don't need to always try to prove someone wrong.
It is possible to politely express a counterpoint without turning it into petty semantic dribble, without attempting to make the other party look dumb for no reason, without playing dumb to or ignoring points, or without being downright unpleasant.
>>77960436
>if you could have expressed that thought yourself just as cleanly and rationally as you said there
It wasn't until just now that I realized that's what you were doing. All those times I accused you of changing your mind and shit, because that's what I thought you were doing, and only now do I realize that you are just being too vague to form a coherent argument against.
I still have no idea what you were even trying to say. Your last few posts have, if anything, made me less certain than I was halfway through this.
>without playing dumb to or ignoring points
I haven't ignored any of your points. The more points you make and the more "clarifications" you provide, the harder it is to tell what you meant in the first place.
>>77960740
To quote an earlier post of mine
>I don't even know why you keep responding to me anon
There was literally nothing to argue with in my last post, yet you quote me to respond with another NEW argument out of nowhere.
If you're not doing this purposefully, you're certainly subconsciously wanting to bicker.
Anon, I really don't care to argue.
I've tried explaining my opinion, you tear me down and argue how it's not valid or you don't understand it.
This continues in circles.
At this point I don't care if you get what I'm saying anon, I don't care to argue, and I really don't see why you keep trying to bait me into further discussion.
>>77960941
>There was literally nothing to argue with in my last post
Not even the pointed accusations that I'm refusing to understand you on purpose?
You don't get to just call names and lay blame and then claim the high ground and say I'm the only one being argumentative.
>>77951444
>mila kunis is so fucking hot, it hurts to look at her!
>>77961224
My only pointed accusation is that you're wanting to bicker man, I'm arguing too, but to defend an opinion I originally expressed that you later started attacking, and I'm fucking tired of defending it.
I'm being argumentative in a defensive way, but you've been on the offense this entire time, and you're still trying to draw me in.
I really don't care anymore, and I'm not sure why you do.
>>77961760
>I'm being argumentative in a defensive way, but you've been on the offense this entire time
you're the one who started namecalling and trying to make it personal m8
>opinion I originally expressed that you later started attacking, and I'm fucking tired of defending it
don't ever post your opinions on 4chan then
>>77961856
I'm honestly not trying to make this personal anon. I swear.
>you're the one who started namecalling
I honestly remember you appearing pretty hostile from the getgo, and was considering going to look through the thread to find out who actually started the name calling but then I realized again, this is you being argumentative once again. I don't really care about this.
I don't care who started it, I've been defending my opinion, you've been on the offensive, I've been responding defensively, we've both been argumentative.
I no longer care to discuss it as you seem to be the only anon who has had any trouble understanding my point, and it's rather pointless and frustrating bickering in circles with you.
>>77951498
Career over?
But you were in Jupiter Ascending
>>77951444
>Mila Kunis
>one of the hottest women in Hollywood
>>77951583
Anybody would have bombed in that dogshit.
If there was a 25 minute lesbian sex scene, it still would have fucking bombed.
>>77974319
It helped Black Swan. But that was actually pretty good.
>>77951825
now reread what you wrote
>enjoy That 70's Show in the early days, stop watching at some point.
>Catch an episode in syndication recently
>half the cast is different
What the fuck happened? This didn't seem like the sort of show where you could take out the kids and insert new ones.
>>77956012
She's Chilean isn't she? And yeah she is hot without make up and fake tan
>>77951538
I'd agree in the first few seasons, but she actually managed to get character development that easily bumped her up.
POWER RANKINGS
>Elder God-tier
Leo
Red
Kitty
>Great-tier
Hyde
Kelso
Foreman
>Good tier
Donna
Jackie
Laurie
>Meh tier
Bob
>Shit tier
Midge
Fez
That guy that replaced Foreman in the last season
>>77978087
>This didn't seem like the sort of show where you could take out the kids and insert new ones
it wasn't. Which is why everyone hated the last two seasons.
>>77951444
>How does Mila Kunis, one of the hottest women in Hollywood, feel about voicing Meg, one of the most shat-upon characters in cartoon history?
She's a Ukrainian Jew, she's used to being shit on.
>>77978323
guy that replaced Foreman needs his own tier below everyone else.
I'd put Fez in the same tier as Bob 2bh
