Escapism > Good Morals

Demon

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
6,987
Kin
8,760💸
Kumi
853💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I want to start an argument.
So I'm gonna try to argue this.

Ever since like the 90s, people have said that video games and horror movies etc are causing violence and stuff.

And I think, I might be wrong but I think around the 50s it was popular to send "good" messages to at least kids, when doing kids stuff like super heroes or whatever, tv shows, comics etc.

The heroes had to stand for something positive and they had to tell you what was right.


Now we live in a time where we even have movies about bad people, where the protagonist are a bad person and or there are multiple protagonists with different opinions and nobody is more right than the other.

We also live with fiction like fantasy that isn't even meant to be for kids, ala Game of Thrones.


Not to mention there is plenty of violent entertainment out there not suited for kids.


I think think this is for the most part a positive change.


I think this is actually a good thing because stories are not just about sending a political or anti poltical message anymore but it's about the art and craft itself of making good stories.

You can't value a story the same way if the highest priority for the makers is to adhere to certain agendas at the end of the day.


People fall in love and critique the stories themselves not it's indirect or direct messages to little kids.


Also, reality can be very unfair and complicated, maybe not for the people born into a family with good family values, but for many kids life can be weird and tough.

And to watch movies where there is just some preacher there confirming beliefs in what is right, it doesn't do anything for you, it has no value anymore, because you can't connect and relate to someone selfrighteous and smug.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that, not everybody likes the same thing, not everybody agrees on the same things, not everybody enjoys seeing captain justice cathcing a criminal for the 9999999999th time in a row.

Sometimes it's more appealing to see good people fail and have their character smudged. In a sense it's like the death of God.

You kill God by suddenly putting dirt on the cape of Superman, or forcing him in to a complex moral dilemma that he can't get out of clean.

You don't "really" kill God, but you stop believing in Santa essentially.

It's easier to represent the real world or at least how we really feel inside if we are not held back by moral standards.

So in a sense escapism has it easier appealing to people for real, or portraying reality that might have otherwise been unseen.


Also, in the real world people don't always agree on what the right thing is, ask different politicians if they are good people and trying to fight for what is right.
All of them are gonna say yes, but neither of them will agree.


So how can we agree on what is right when portraying good vs evil on the screeen?

Is Lord of the Rings where evil is always dark and monstrous more right than Game of Thrones where all the humans are flawed?


Or is it just less complex?


Are we all gonna assume the good person is always right when in the real world we are polarized?


How?

How can we just let go of what we think and feel and all agree that yeah, what that character did was heroic etc?



If you have stories without a moral compass, I believe that forces people to think for themselves instead of being brainfed the same dead thing over and over.

And in the end I think that's an even bigger moral to the story. Cus if you suddenly need to stop and think that means you are making actual progress in my mind.

If we don't need to think but expect some leader to think for us, then how can we say we are really good? We barely know how to define good, we are just mindless slaves doing whatever people are telling us to do.


That's my thoughts.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Astrovio

Demon

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
6,987
Kin
8,760💸
Kumi
853💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
man you are going too far ..i'm tired of you steping your boundaries and then apologize and pass it off as joke....i want respekt you hear me????...

I WANT FVVCKING RESPEKT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:..
ok, I'm sry.
I shall respect you.
If I can, not sure if I can.
I remember, I used to respect people alot in the past, but it didn't get me anywhere, I don't really want to respect people anymore.
Post automatically merged:

man you are going too far ..i'm tired of you steping your boundaries and then apologize and pass it off as joke....i want respekt you hear me????...

I WANT FVVCKING RESPEKT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:..
I'm actually very cowardly.
But I do respect you. I think.
Post automatically merged:

man you are going too far ..i'm tired of you steping your boundaries and then apologize and pass it off as joke....i want respekt you hear me????...

I WANT FVVCKING RESPEKT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:..
I don't wanna lose you, I really don't.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Astrovio

minamoto

Active member
Supreme
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,599
Kin
18,623💸
Kumi
2,809💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
ok, I'm sry.
I shall respect you.
If I can, not sure if I can.
I remember, I used to respect people alot in the past, but it didn't get me anywhere, I don't really want to respect people anymore.
Post automatically merged:


I'm actually very cowardly.
But I do respect you. I think.
Post automatically merged:


I don't wanna lose you, I really don't.
im looking for rent room in sweden..
 

Demon

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
6,987
Kin
8,760💸
Kumi
853💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
im looking for rent room in sweden..
mm...
...
............
...

wish I could lend you a room but there is already someone here occupying some space.
He doesn't use his room though, so technicaly there is an empty room you could put a matress in and live in for some time.


wouuld need to check some legalityies to.po


Imma send a picture tomorrow.
 

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
893
Kin
2,789💸
Kumi
873💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Hmm, a worthwhile matter

And precisely because it is so, i must ask that you properly and thoroughly express yourself and your views on this topic - thoroughly and completely.

Maybe its not possible to be completely expressive, but at least the important points - the ones that decide your position.

Discussion is worthwhile because we share perspectives, the parts of our experience that no one else can have in the same way we have it. This makes discussion great even if the topic is seemingly meaningless - protip: all topics are meaningful. This is because we still take something from it that helps us better understand things and helps us realise that - even if we disagree - there are other perspectives and ways of doing things.
Of course, when the topic is more meaningful, you need more than just to know that there are other ways. You need something solid that you can take and you can give. Something that, when properly explored, will result in development of the views themselves. They literally affect the lives of people and involve death.
So that is why i ask that you make sure to properly express your views, particularly those which actually affect your stance.
Personally, i also have some troublesome experience with having a important discussion with a friend, one which took many hours, only to have them say at the end that they were just making points and didn't properly align with any side, so to say that all points expressed weren't really meaningful to their views. So all the effort put in was basically wasted.
So i'd like to know that when we have discussed matters, the discussion will actually affect our views. If certain points are proved, we will accept them. If certain points are disproved, our stances will evolve fittingly.
To everyone.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: minamoto

minamoto

Active member
Supreme
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,599
Kin
18,623💸
Kumi
2,809💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Hmm, a worthwhile matter

And precisely because it is so, i must ask that you properly and thoroughly express yourself and your views on this topic - thoroughly and completely.

Maybe its not possible to be completely expressive, but at least the important points - the ones that decide your position.

Discussion is worthwhile because we share perspectives, the parts of our experience that no one else can have in the same way we have it. This makes discussion great even if the topic is seemingly meaningless - protip: all topics are meaningful. This is because we still take something from it that helps us better understand things and helps us realise that - even if we disagree - there are other perspectives and ways of doing things.
Of course, when the topic is more meaningful, you need more than just to know that there are other ways. You need something solid that you can take and you can give. Something that, when properly explored, will result in development of the views themselves. They literally affect the lives of people and involve death.
So that is why i ask that you make sure to properly express your views, particularly those which actually affect your stance.
Personally, i also have some troublesome experience with having a important discussion with a friend, one which took many hours, only to have them say at the end that they were just making points and didn't properly align with any side, so to say that all points expressed weren't really meaningful to their views. So all the effort put in was basically wasted.
So i'd like to know that when we have discussed matters, the discussion will actually affect our views. If certain points are proved, we will accept them. If certain points are disproved, our stances will evolve fittingly.
To everyone.
wana join my tobidara clan????..
 

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
893
Kin
2,789💸
Kumi
873💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Okay then. Based on the lack of an update, I'm gonna assume you've fully expressed yourself.

In dealing with these topics, of truth and such, there's 2 ways. The first is to prove that any point is directly false (contradicts reality). The second is to prove that its direct opposite is true (because in reality, opposites can't be both true as that is contradiction). Passively, you prove that the point is not necessarily true or that the opposite is not necessarily false. These are the two ways.

In getting about those two ways, one can either prove directly or indirectly, by forcing the opponent to prove their side. I used the indirect method when i asked endless questions the other day, forcing you to prove your points and claiming win when you couldn't.

But that was tedious, wasn't it. I kept asking questions, you kept answering, i asked more about your answer and so on. This is tedious because if someone doesn't recognise the fault in their point, chances are they dont see the fault in their thinking, so they will keep answering with faulty reasoning, which you will keep having to question and so on. Now if they are honest, you dont need more than 5 questions on any point to get to the roote of their faulty thinking, but if they are trolling it goes on forever. Even when backed into a corner, they deflect with appeal-based fallacies (appeal to populace, emotion etc). But it does allow to get to the root of their faulty thinking and so prevent any future cases of it, IF THEY ARE HONEST.

I will use the direct method. I do think you are honest (enough), but there is another disadvantage to that method. It is tedious. For important topics, especially when you have a crowd, people will lose concentration at halfway point and leave the discussion. This leaves many people not getting the right answer for important topics. So since my goal is to give right answer, i must use the more direct method.
Post automatically merged:

Ever since like the 90s, people have said that video games and horror movies etc are causing violence and stuff.
Ok.

Are they wrong?

Since you set this as the opposite side to your case, you have to either prove it wrong (so that no matter what, this side cannot be correct, implying any side opposing it is more likely to be correct) or prove your own side to be 'more correct'
Based on what i read, you didnt do either of these. You stated much opinion, some of it not even attached to this initial point.


And I think, I might be wrong but I think around the 50s it was popular to send "good" messages to at least kids, when doing kids stuff like super heroes or whatever, tv shows, comics etc.
Doesn't matter if you are wrong.
With this line, you basically give a foundation to your thinking/ideas. Since we are looking at that, it doesnt matter if you are not perfectly correct, because we understand you.


The heroes had to stand for something positive and they had to tell you what was right
"Had to"

Maybe.

Nonetheless, can you prove this particularly as a faulty way of things?

Child-raising proves the idea wrong. People do need guidance. You can question the specifics, like corporal punishment etc, but they definitely need guidance. These very conversations are an evolution of this.


Now we live in a time where we even have movies about bad people, where the protagonist are a bad person and or there are multiple protagonists with different opinions and nobody is more right than the other
Actually, the point of these is to say that anyone is redeemable, the premise of which is to say there is definitely right and wrong.


We also live with fiction like fantasy that isn't even meant to be for kids, ala Game of Thrones.
This proves it all.

If something isn't suitable for some, that directly translates to it be wrong for them. So right and wrong exist and are being actively applied.


Not to mention there is plenty of violent entertainment out there not suited for kids.


I think think this is for the most part a positive change.
How is "not suitable for our future" a positive change?
So its an internal contradiction here.


I think this is actually a good thing because stories are not just about sending a polltergeist or anti poltical message anymore but it's about the art and craft itself of making good stories.
How is "art and craft" opposed to messages?

You're also basing the "no one is right or wrong" thing as some sort of non-message when it could be a message in itself, so bad premise. Bad premise gets worse when you yourself are trying to give a message from them.

You also switched from "moral message" to "political message". Two different things, very very different connotations.


You can't value a story the same way if the highest priority for the makers is to adhere to certain agendas at the end of the day.
You cant value anything the same if it becomes different.
You must show that this difference is particularly good or bad.
Again, you're assuming a lack of agenda just because you dont see one.

I could go further and attack by saying that you yourself are a tool of this new message and the fact thay you dont see it is proof that this new system works by deceiving its very own and therefore is inherently against truth, bad for reality. But meh, maybe on another day.

People fall in love and critique the stories themselves not it's indirect or direct messages to little kids.
Maybe.

How is this particularly better?
Theres nothing to critique without moral values in the story, so your point proves your other points as faulty.


Also, reality can be very unfair and complicated, maybe not for the people born into a family with good family values, but for many kids life can be weird and tough.
I'd like to disagree on the fairness thing, but i dont have much to go on.
So, if life is tough, aren't guidance messages inherently better , instead of random story that offers nothing to take besides passing time we could be using to improve?


And to watch movies where there is just some preacher there confirming beliefs in what is right, it doesn't do anything for you, it has no value anymore, because you can't connect and relate to someone selfrighteous and smug.
Confirming not only provides guidance but protects from psychological predators who wanna manipulate you.

Hold on, when did basic moral story become self-righteous and smug? See how your opposite has slowly evolved? First it was just messages, then political, now particularly self-righteous and smug. Thats switching targets.
Of course, the fact that you yourself are using moral undertones proves you recognise morality and its value.


I don't think there is anything wrong with that, not everybody likes the same thing, not everybody agrees on the same things, not everybody enjoys seeing captain justice cathcing a criminal for the 9999999999th time in a row
How does differences lead to moral foundations? One is expression of taste, the other is basis for commonality.

Only people I've met with that view are actual criminals. Not saying theyre compltely wrong, but you are making a point with no backing, using it to insinuate something you cant really back up and using faulty tools for it.
Faulty tool? Justice is a socially malleable concept but is fundamnetally tied to social good, so by nature, every good citizen enjoys seeing justice carrued out because they inherebtly agree withg it.


Sometimes it's more appealing to see good people fail and have their character smudged. In a sense it's like the death of God.
Okay. Maybe.

How does this relate to what we show our kids, literally the future of the world ?

Why is this death a parpticularly good thing? As living beings, its not because we tend to life.


You kill God by suddenly putting dirt on the cape of Superman, or forcing him in to a complex moral dilemma that he can't get out of clean.
Okay.

But why do so? What benefit is there?


You don't "really" kill God, but you stop believing in Santa essentially
Okay.

What good does this do?

Also, these topics are matter-of-fact topics. You're not supposed to "kill" them but rather prove or disprove. So the premise to this paragraph is a faulty notion.


It's easier to represent the real world or at least how we really feel inside if we are not held back by moral standards.
Why and how?

World is built on morals, so thats automatically faulty.

Also, why would morals hold back a true expression, since truth is part of morality? So you have mixed up general morality with specific morals. See how your target keeps changing.


So in a sense escapism has it easier appealing to people for real, or portraying reality that might have otherwise been unseen.
How does escapism relate to the above?

By definition its unreal so it cant be more realistic.


Also, in the real world people don't always agree on what the right thing is, ask different politicians if they are good people and trying to fight for what is right.
All of them are gonna say yes, but neither of them will agree.
Okay. There's an entire world of "art" where they try to justify rape, so i get you, but how does this show messages as bad?

It makes them more important becuase it gives better audience for discussion

Also, lying exists, so your proof itself is shaky.


So how can we agree on what is right when portraying good vs evil on the screeen?
We can at least debate it.

Otheriwise, this question goes to society itself, which is built on a common grounding of right and wrong.


Is Lord of the Rings where evil is always dark and monstrous more right than Game of Thrones where all the humans are flawed?


Or is it just less complex?
Who cares?

Also, you're assuming that distinction is about right and wrong and not simple flavour. Its not different, possibly, from looking at chocolate and salt and putting them against each other as moral choices when it could just be pure taste. Some like chocolate, some like salt.


Are we all gonna assume the good person is always right when in the real world we are polarized?


How?

How can we just let go of what we think and feel and all agree that yeah, what that character did was heroic etc?
By defintion, good = right.

In terms of what youre trying to say, we really should not. We should evaluate everything and not just assume.

We are polarised? So what? How does that, if even true, apply to characters who give messages?


If you have stories without a moral compass, I believe that forces people to think for themselves instead of being brainfed the same dead thing over and over.
Thinking is an automatic process, youd have a harder task trying to stop thinking.
"Dead thing" "brainfed" "forces". Do you see the many insinuations here? The use of such under-lying things goes against the idea of an open discussion by using hidden techniques to influence the fkow of thought.

Anyway, a story withg a message is also evaluated, so thinking is not shut down. Your very case is proof of it.


And in the end I think that's an even bigger moral to the story. Cus if you suddenly need to stop and think that means you are making actual progress in my mind
Not all thoughts needs a stop. Some are simple enough to confirm without stopping.
So the idea that something must make you stop is faulty.


If we don't need to think but expect some leader to think for us, then how can we say we are really good? We barely know how to define good, we are just mindless slaves doing whatever people are telling us to do.


That's my thoughts.
Technically, the leader earns his role, so he is qualified to rule over others by their own consent. So we can say we tryst the leader, therefore we are likely to be good. Technically.

No, those are not your thoughts. Those are memes and notions forced into you by your propaganda feeder who is just skilled enough to always make you think about the other side and so you dont see them playing with your head.
I've dealt with propaganda specialists, people actually trained for the stuff, so i know their work, how they manipulate even tye sharpest minds and so on. So i see their marks all over your post.
Your thoughts, your own genuine thoughts, are of much higher quality. Get notions and ideas out of your head, and evaluate everything as you see it yourself. Then you'll be able to offer them to others.

People are fundamentally logical and reasonable, so the fact that there was so much disconnect with your points is easy proof that its not your own pure thoughts.

Now i said "get notions out", but i myself was incredibly lucky to learn about these things as i did. Had my own life gone ever-so-slightly different, i would be a very different person. So im not sure how exactly to do it, but it helps to question your own premises. Apply the same criticism to your own side as with other sides.
 
Last edited:
  • Angry
  • Wow
Reactions: minamoto and Demon

Demon

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
6,987
Kin
8,760💸
Kumi
853💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Okay then. Based on the lack of an update, I'm gonna assume you've fully expressed yourself.

In dealing with these topics, of truth and such, there's 2 ways. The first is to prove that any point is directly false (contradicts reality). The second is to prove that its direct opposite is true (because in reality, opposites can't be both true as that is contradiction). Passively, you prove that the point is not necessarily true or that the opposite is not necessarily false. These are the two ways.

In getting about those two ways, one can either prove directly or indirectly, by forcing the opponent to prove their side. I used the indirect method when i asked endless questions the other day, forcing you to prove your points and claiming win when you couldn't.

But that was tedious, wasn't it. I kept asking questions, you kept answering, i asked more about your answer and so on. This is tedious because if someone doesn't recognise the fault in their point, chances are they dont see the fault in their thinking, so they will keep answering with faulty reasoning, which you will keep having to question and so on. Now if they are honest, you dont need more than 5 questions on any point to get to the roote of their faulty thinking, but if they are trolling it goes on forever. Even when backed into a corner, they deflect with appeal-based fallacies (appeal to populace, emotion etc). But it does allow to get to the root of their faulty thinking and so prevent any future cases of it, IF THEY ARE HONEST.

I will use the direct method. I do think you are honest (enough), but there is another disadvantage to that method. It is tedious. For important topics, especially when you have a crowd, people will lose concentration at halfway point and leave the discussion. This leaves many people not getting the right answer for important topics. So since my goal is to give right answer, i must use the more direct method.
Post automatically merged:



Ok.

Are they wrong?

Since you set this as the opposite side to your case, you have to either prove it wrong (so that no matter what, this side cannot be correct, implying any side opposing it is more likely to be correct) or prove your own side to be 'more correct'
Based on what i read, you didnt do either of these. You stated much opinion, some of it not even attached to this initial point.



Doesn't matter if you are wrong.
With this line, you basically give a foundation to your thinking/ideas. Since we are looking at that, it doesnt matter if you are not perfectly correct, because we understand you.



"Had to"

Maybe.

Nonetheless, can you prove this particularly as a faulty way of things?

Child-raising proves the idea wrong. People do need guidance. You can question the specifics, like corporal punishment etc, but they definitely need guidance. These very conversations are an evolution of this.



Actually, the point of these is to say that anyone is redeemable, the premise of which is to say there is definitely right and wrong.



This proves it all.

If something isn't suitable for some, that directly translates to it be wrong for them. So right and wrong exist and are being actively applied.



How is "not suitable for our future" a positive change?
So its an internal contradiction here.



How is "art and craft" opposed to messages?

You're also basing the "no one is right or wrong" thing as some sort of non-message when it could be a message in itself, so bad premise. Bad premise gets worse when you yourself are trying to give a message from them.

You also switched from "moral message" to "political message". Two different things, very very different connotations.



You cant value anything the same if it becomes different.
You must show that this difference is particularly good or bad.
Again, you're assuming a lack of agenda just because you dont see one.

I could go further and attack by saying that you yourself are a tool of this new message and the fact thay you dont see it is proof that this new system works by deceiving its very own and therefore is inherently against truth, bad for reality. But meh, maybe on another day.


Maybe.

How is this particularly better?
Theres nothing to critique without moral values in the story, so your point proves your other points as faulty.



I'd like to disagree on the fairness thing, but i dont have much to go on.
So, if life is tough, aren't guidance messages inherently better , instead of random story that offers nothing to take besides passing time we could be using to improve?



Confirming not only provides guidance but protects from psychological predators who wanna manipulate you.

Hold on, when did basic moral story become self-righteous and smug? See how your opposite has slowly evolved? First it was just messages, then political, now particularly self-righteous and smug. Thats switching targets.
Of course, the fact that you yourself are using moral undertones proves you recognise morality and its value.



How does differences lead to moral foundations? One is expression of taste, the other is basis for commonality.

Only people I've met with that view are actual criminals. Not saying theyre compltely wrong, but you are making a point with no backing, using it to insinuate something you cant really back up and using faulty tools for it.
Faulty tool? Justice is a socially malleable concept but is fundamnetally tied to social good, so by nature, every good citizen enjoys seeing justice carrued out because they inherebtly agree withg it.



Okay. Maybe.

How does this relate to what we show our kids, literally the future of the world ?

Why is this death a parpticularly good thing? As living beings, its not because we tend to life.



Okay.

But why do so? What benefit is there?



Okay.

What good does this do?

Also, these topics are matter-of-fact topics. You're not supposed to "kill" them but rather prove or disprove. So the premise to this paragraph is a faulty notion.



Why and how?

World is built on morals, so thats automatically faulty.

Also, why would morals hold back a true expression, since truth is part of morality? So you have mixed up general morality with specific morals. See how your target keeps changing.



How does escapism relate to the above?

By definition its unreal so it cant be more realistic.



Okay. There's an entire world of "art" where they try to justify rape, so i get you, but how does this show messages as bad?

It makes them more important becuase it gives better audience for discussion

Also, lying exists, so your proof itself is shaky.



We can at least debate it.

Otheriwise, this question goes to society itself, which is built on a common grounding of right and wrong.






Who cares?

Also, you're assuming that distinction is about right and wrong and not simple flavour. Its not different, possibly, from looking at chocolate and salt and putting them against each other as moral choices when it could just be pure taste. Some like chocolate, some like salt.



By defintion, good = right.

In terms of what youre trying to say, we really should not. We should evaluate everything and not just assume.

We are polarised? So what? How does that, if even true, apply to characters who give messages?



Thinking is an automatic process, youd have a harder task trying to stop thinking.
"Dead thing" "brainfed" "forces". Do you see the many insinuations here? The use of such under-lying things goes against the idea of an open discussion by using hidden techniques to influence the fkow of thought.

Anyway, a story withg a message is also evaluated, so thinking is not shut down. Your very case is proof of it.



Not all thoughts needs a stop. Some are simple enough to confirm without stopping.
So the idea that something must make you stop is faulty.



Technically, the leader earns his role, so he is qualified to rule over others by their own consent. So we can say we tryst the leader, therefore we are likely to be good. Technically.

No, those are not your thoughts. Those are memes and notions forced into you by your propaganda feeder who is just skilled enough to always make you think about the other side and so you dont see them playing with your head.
I've dealt with propaganda specialists, people actually trained for the stuff, so i know their work, how they manipulate even tye sharpest minds and so on. So i see their marks all over your post.
Your thoughts, your own genuine thoughts, are of much higher quality. Get notions and ideas out of your head, and evaluate everything as you see it yourself. Then you'll be able to offer them to others.

People are fundamentally logical and reasonable, so the fact that there was so much disconnect with your points is easy proof that its not your own pure thoughts.

Now i said "get notions out", but i myself was incredibly lucky to learn about these things as i did. Had my own life gone ever-so-slightly different, i would be a very different person. So im not sure how exactly to do it, but it helps to question your own premises. Apply the same criticism to your own side as with other sides.


1
Yes they are wrong, car accidents happen all the time, but we still drive cars, why should we bann all popculture because we are afraid they are bad influence?
We can't ban bad influence, that happens to people regardless, it's up to each individual and family to be strong enough to deal with it.

2
Yes, people need guidance but they are wrong to expect it to come from popuculture with political or corporate agendas.


3
My point was that story telling is not as black and white as it used too be, and that's not a lie.


4
I'm not saying right or wrong doesn't exist or that kids should watch horror movies, I'm saying it's not always something you can rely the morning cartoons to teach kids.
They don't have the answers to the mysteries of the universe, and to think morality is always simple is not correct.

5.
I think it's positive in general that popculture has evolved, cus it's not just dorks that watch it anymore.
It's something to be taken seriously and not exclusivley for children.

It's more real and more in touch with people's actual world, not disneyland.

6

Moral Messages can be political.

To belittle people by having Captain Justice always telling them what to do is moronic.
Also, it does take away from the craft because the point of the story doesn't become to tell a good story it's just a way to service an agenda.
That excludes people who doesn't agree to that agenda from watching.


7.
Morality can still exist but what I'm saying is the creators own personal opinions about right and wrong shouldn't guide the telling.
For example, I care about climate change, that doesn't mean I'm going to implement main characters that always champion the climate.

8.
If I am somehow using morality then it's not as vulnurable as it seems then is it? I f we can't escape stories without morality we don't need to protect it so much.
Stories told today in genre entertainment would never have been approved in the past.
Morality police quickly becomes smug and self righteous, because just because your burn for something doesn't mean you know what's going on.

9. Bottom line is that people should think for themselves and not just blindlessly follow what's on the tv.
 
Last edited:
  • Angry
Reactions: minamoto

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
893
Kin
2,789💸
Kumi
873💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
1
Yes they are wrong, car accidents happen all the time, but we still drive cars, why should we bann all popculture because we are afraid they are bad influence?
We can't ban bad influence, that happens to people regardless, it's up to each individual and family to be strong enough to deal with it.

2
Yes, people need guidance but they are wrong to expect it to come from popuculture with political or corporate agendas.


3
My point was that story telling is not as black and white as it used too be, and that's not a lie.


4
I'm not saying right or wrong doesn't exist or that kids should watch horror movies, I'm saying it's not always something you can rely the morning cartoons to teach kids.
They don't have the answers to the mysteries of the universe, and to think morality is always simple is not correct.

5.
I think it's positive in general that popculture has evolved, cus it's not just dorks that watch it anymore.
It's something to be taken seriously and not exclusivley for children.

It's more real and more in touch with people's actual world, not disneyland.

6

Moral Messages can be political.

To belittle people by having Captain Justice always telling them what to do is moronic.
Also, it does take away from the craft because the point of the story doesn't become to tell a good story it's just a way to service an agenda.
That excludes people who doesn't agree to that agenda from watching.


7.
Morality can still exist but what I'm saying is the creators own personal opinions about right and wrong shouldn't guide the telling.
For example, I care about climate change, that doesn't mean I'm going to implement main characters that always champion the climate.

8.
If I am somehow using morality then it's not as vulnurable as it seems then is it? I f we can't escape stories without morality we don't need to protect it so much.
Stories told today in genre entertainment would never have been approved in the past.
Morality police quickly becomes smug and self righteous, because just because your burn for something doesn't mean you know what's going on.

9. Bottom line is that people should think for themselves and not just blindlessly follow what's on the tv.
Before i continue . . .

@minamoto
What's wrong brother? Talk to us

1. Accident vs Influence
You see the diference? One thing happens out of our control and against our will, the other thing shapes our will towards harmfulness.

Again, one thing is necessary, the other is a choice, a very frivolous one at that.

Then you switch targets again. There is a difference between banning an existential factor and banning a man-made format forthat particular factor.

And before we even get to switching targets, i didn't argue to ban them in the first place. I just pointed out that its not necessarily positive overall.

I only came across this in the past few months myself, but duckduckgo "non-sequitir". It'll help with many of your points.


2. Wrong to expect? Why?
Power => responsibility

In a world where kids are GETTING SHOT UP, morality says any tool that can help with guidance MUST be used if we value our kids.
Now if you wanna talk a perfect world, that's another story
Otherwise, when did basic moral messages become " with political agendas"? Again, youre switching targets.


3. Your point?
Of course it is not assimple, that is why we have this discussion in the first place.
So what if if is not a lie, i never claimed it was.
Your point was that it is a good thing, not that it is simply a true fact. Switching targets again.


4. Reliability issues?
Same can be said for parents orfriends or teachers, doesnt meant they should not help when they can.
And actually, since we decide what is on tv, we can choose to use it to teach positivity. It is as reliable as we are.
So you switched targets, then you were imprecise and finally even the basus of your point is not good.


5. D9rks and Reality?
This one is disconnect from the whole topic

"Dorks" dont matter when we artalking out kids shooting each other.
"More real" does not happen when you are arguing for "escapism"
So here you just went away from your own foundations. This keans that even if you are correct with these points, they do not add to your initial arguement at all. You keep switching targets man, yougotta stick to them. Otherwise we make no progress because we keep jumping around instead of focussing on any point.


6,7,8,9,X Sorry, thats enough for now
Mate, yourpoints are all over the place.
Furst you keep switching targets. Then you dontunderstand basic meaning of these targets and finally you ejd up moving around so much you end up arguing against your own points.
Thus makes it really difficult to address your points.e

You talk about something, but defend it using points that dont apply to it. Like, if movies do not have universal answers, why does it matter? Who said they should?

You talk about politics in the colloquial sense of all the squabbling and pettyness, then you connect it using the technical definition, of due process.

You talk about universal fact, then use that to say weshould encourage our limits.

This makes it diffuclt to address your points because i am preoared to deal with what you present. But if you keep changing what you present, or defend it with disconnected facts - if at all - then i cant cleanly address that.
The worst thing about this is that it undermines both of us. See, if i disprove your point, i achieve nothing because i will only disprove a defence that technically does not even aoply to the true topic. If you prove something, it means nothing because you will have used proof that does apply to the topic.
So basically, neither of us can achieve what we set out for (i wilk quote in next post) in this discussion. Im not sure if it is a misunderstanding or what, but please clear up your points.
Post automatically merged:

You need something solid that you can take and you can give. Something that, when properly explored, will result in development of the views themselves. They literally affect the lives of people and involve death.
So i'd like to know that when we have discussed matters, the discussion will actually affect our views. If certain points are proved, we will accept them. If certain points are disproved, our stances will evolve fittingly.
To everyone.
 

minamoto

Active member
Supreme
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,599
Kin
18,623💸
Kumi
2,809💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Before i continue . . .

@minamoto
What's wrong brother? Talk to us

1. Accident vs Influence
You see the diference? One thing happens out of our control and against our will, the other thing shapes our will towards harmfulness.

Again, one thing is necessary, the other is a choice, a very frivolous one at that.

Then you switch targets again. There is a difference between banning an existential factor and banning a man-made format forthat particular factor.

And before we even get to switching targets, i didn't argue to ban them in the first place. I just pointed out that its not necessarily positive overall.

I only came across this in the past few months myself, but duckduckgo "non-sequitir". It'll help with many of your points.


2. Wrong to expect? Why?
Power => responsibility

In a world where kids are GETTING SHOT UP, morality says any tool that can help with guidance MUST be used if we value our kids.
Now if you wanna talk a perfect world, that's another story
Otherwise, when did basic moral messages become " with political agendas"? Again, youre switching targets.


3. Your point?
Of course it is not assimple, that is why we have this discussion in the first place.
So what if if is not a lie, i never claimed it was.
Your point was that it is a good thing, not that it is simply a true fact. Switching targets again.


4. Reliability issues?
Same can be said for parents orfriends or teachers, doesnt meant they should not help when they can.
And actually, since we decide what is on tv, we can choose to use it to teach positivity. It is as reliable as we are.
So you switched targets, then you were imprecise and finally even the basus of your point is not good.


5. D9rks and Reality?
This one is disconnect from the whole topic

"Dorks" dont matter when we artalking out kids shooting each other.
"More real" does not happen when you are arguing for "escapism"
So here you just went away from your own foundations. This keans that even if you are correct with these points, they do not add to your initial arguement at all. You keep switching targets man, yougotta stick to them. Otherwise we make no progress because we keep jumping around instead of focussing on any point.


6,7,8,9,X Sorry, thats enough for now
Mate, yourpoints are all over the place.
Furst you keep switching targets. Then you dontunderstand basic meaning of these targets and finally you ejd up moving around so much you end up arguing against your own points.
Thus makes it really difficult to address your points.e

You talk about something, but defend it using points that dont apply to it. Like, if movies do not have universal answers, why does it matter? Who said they should?

You talk about politics in the colloquial sense of all the squabbling and pettyness, then you connect it using the technical definition, of due process.

You talk about universal fact, then use that to say weshould encourage our limits.

This makes it diffuclt to address your points because i am preoared to deal with what you present. But if you keep changing what you present, or defend it with disconnected facts - if at all - then i cant cleanly address that.
The worst thing about this is that it undermines both of us. See, if i disprove your point, i achieve nothing because i will only disprove a defence that technically does not even aoply to the true topic. If you prove something, it means nothing because you will have used proof that does apply to the topic.
So basically, neither of us can achieve what we set out for (i wilk quote in next post) in this discussion. Im not sure if it is a misunderstanding or what, but please clear up your points.
Post automatically merged:
wait a minote..
 
Top